HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1997 Regular Meeting
THE AUGUSTA COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
December 16, 1997
The Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 12:10 p.m., Tuesday,
December 16, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Kuhlke, Mays,
Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of The Augusta-Richmond County
Commission;
ABSENT: Hon. Freddie Handy, member of The Augusta-Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND ROBERT ANDERSON.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Approve participation in the GMA 1997
Pool Program. 2. Acceptance of aviation fuel supply proposal from
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. (Bid Item #98-002) as recommended by the
Purchasing Director, the Airport Director, and a subcommittee of the Augusta
Aviation Commission.
DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: 1. Item 27: Motion to approve
amendment to Grant No. 97-C-LB-310 from the State of Georgia Department of
Community Affairs, deleting the disbursement of funds in the amount of $10,000
to the Adult Development Center and authorizing disbursement of funds in the
amount of $5,000 to Macedonia Connection, Inc. 2. Item 30: Discussion
to approve a request for increase in benefits from the 1945 Pensioners under
the Richmond County Plan. 3. Item 37: Motion to conceptually approve
LWDC's Superblock Housing & Community Development Action Plan/Work Program
(Superblock).
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Delegation: Mr. Bud Amerson, Citizen Advisory
Committee/Transition Team, and Mr. Doug Shaw from Precision Planning, Final
Report on the Fourth Street and Phinizy Road Jail Projects.
MR. AMERSON: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, on behalf of the Citizens
Committee we would like to thank you for the opportunity that we have had to
represent you in working with all the necessary parties to obtain the most
efficient and cost-effective method to benefit the taxpayers of Richmond
County. The scope of our work consisted of the renovation and expansion of
the Joint Law Enforcement Center serving Richmond County. And just a quick
overlay of what you asked us to do: we were responsible to work with the
architects, contractors, and the staff in reviewing the plan from the design
development to the final drawing, participating in the bid letting, the
reviewing of work in progress, approving of monthly draw requests, and the
approval of any change orders, or disapproval. At this time I'd like to
recognize those on the committee, and they're all here, I believe, today. And
that's Mr. Joe Gowny and Larry Phillips, and we did have a member with us for
several years, Lewis Johnson, and he's deceased, and we certainly all miss
Lewis. We have Mr. Frank Dennis and Perry Harrington. And on the Transition
Team, of course, Chief Charles Toole was a member of the Citizens Committee in
the beginning. He's been here even prior to this Citizens Committee being
appointed. And we also have Lieutenant Bill Wren, and Captain Huffman is here
today, and I believe Julian Brown. And at this time I'd like to say that
we've all worked as a committee and a group and I appreciate each and every
one of them. I can't say too much about Chief Charles Toole and Lieutenant
Wren. In fact, we were here quite often, and in my case I think I had it on
my mind here today, insofar as Chief Toole and the others on the Transition
Team they were here every day, so we all indeed owe them a great big thanks.
Now, we did have one other member. He was previously a member and he
resigned when he joined your team. That's Bill Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke resigned
when he was elected to the Commission. And most of you remember, along with
this committee, in the beginning of having a very difficult time trying
everything that we knew to keep the cost of this project within what the
citizens of Richmond County could afford. And as chairman of this committee,
Mr. Kuhlke was our chairman for some three years, and Mr. Kuhlke did an
outstand-ing job in leading us so that we might could make proper
recommendations to you, and in the end it made a real tough job easy. Mr.
Kuhlke, it was a pleasure working under you. Since our appointment by you
on November the 4th, 1992, we have been involved in so many items, and I know
you have a full schedule today and I'll try to make it very brief. But,
number one, we were involved in the demolition of the old jail and of the
adjacent property. Number two, we were involved in extensive site and utility
work, additional parking facilities, replacement of mechanical equipment
serving Fourth Street facilities, and we made a thorough study of the area 911
and emergency management spaces that they occupied and we recommended to you
that they both be relocated. We worked with Mr. Ball and Mr. Revelle and made
recommendations to finalize and cancel any previous contracts and obligations,
including any reimbursements to Richmond County. The next item was the
renovations and the additions to the Fourth Street facility, including the
updating of the elevators. We did extensive work there. And then, of course,
the last item is the new Phinizy Road facility. We are currently working
with Mr. Shaw with PPI, and at this time I would like to recognize Mr. Doug
Shaw and Mr. Arthur George with PPI, and I would like to say that our
relations with them have been outstanding and we feel that Richmond County has
been well represented. To complete our charge, we will be working with Mr.
Shaw on the final punch list, obtain all warranties, guarantees,
correspondence, brochures [inaudible]. I provided you today a cost update
report and, if you will, you will note that we have completed within our
budget. In fact, we've completed with a savings of $2,122,831.95. So at this
time I think this should complete what you asked us to do, and again,
gentlemen, I want to thank you and I hope we have been some help. And as a
last note, and this is my opinion, I hope you will take the opportunity in the
future to use the citizens of this county on all future projects of this type.
And I can tell you from my personal experience again is that you can't beat
the labor cost. So again, gentlemen, thank you very much. I hope that we
have helped you and we certainly indeed appreciate this opportunity to assist
you.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Certainly we would like to thank you on behalf of the
Public Safety Committee and the entire Commission. Mr. Kuhlke came on board
and helped us get this thing back in line. I give you credit for that, Bill,
for a good job. And I think it shows us what we can do with volunteers, Mr.
Oliver, and I think we're going to resurrect that and do it in some of the
other areas because when you have the input into it I think it makes a
difference. Mr. Arthur George back there with Precision Planning, and the
other committees, I think all of you can be commended, and it just shows --
now, if y'all can help us get those locks fixed back down there under that
million dollars, then certainly we would certainly appreciate it. But, Mr.
Mayor, I'd like to commend this committee, and I hope our Commissioners will,
for doing a job well done. That's my motion.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.]
CLERK: At the request of the Mayor, a couple of items will be moved
forward on the agenda. The next item will be Item 119, a motion to approve
the acceptance of a Grant for the Solicitor's Office.
MS. JOLLES: Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. I'm here this
afternoon to ask for your approval of a grant application that I have received
under the Violence Against Women Act. I initially applied back in August for
your permission to apply for the grant and we received notification from
Governor Miller about two weeks ago that we had been approved in the amount of
$25,000. The purpose of the grant would be to allow the addition of a
domestic violence advocate to our Victims Women's Program, which is a self-
funded program through five percent surcharges which are added on to fines
paid by defendants. All of the cash-match monies will be utilized from this
five percent surcharge fund through the salary that's currently paid by the
supervising coordinator of that division. So I'm here to ask for your final
approval on that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. OLIVER: One comment I'd like to make so everybody understands. This
is a one-year grant, so we would propose that it be a temporary position with
the understanding at the end of the year it would obviously be contingent upon
either the grant being renewed or sufficient funds being found within the
operating budget to continue to support it. So I would suggest at this time
it be approved for a one-year period for this particular person that's going
to be hired.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I accept the recommendation to my motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I accept it also.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Jolles, do you have any idea what the fines from the
State Court are on an annual basis? I've been trying to find that figure and
since you were here I thought I'd ask.
MS. JOLLES: It's a little over five million. I could get you an exact
figure on that.
MR. OLIVER: That's the collections, not the levy, I believe.
MS. JOLLES: The levy would exceed that. I can provide that for you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: We will now consider Item 109: Renewal of 1997 on-premises
consumption alcohol, beer, wine, Sunday sales, and dance license for Donn
R. DuTeau to be used in connection with Le Cafe DuTeau located at 1855
Central Avenue. Approved by the Public Services Committee on November
10th.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, just for the record -- and I understand the motion.
I think that the Commission needs to be aware that, unfortunately, I don't
think there is a right answer to this situation. I had asked that it be
postponed in order to have an opportunity for the two sides, the objectors as
well as the Cafe, to meet and try to resolve the issue. That has not been
accomplished. However, one thing that has been accomplished as a result of
that is the Cafe has agreed to implement valet parking on Sunday evenings in
sufficient time so that there will not be individuals parking their own cars
in the rear parking lot in the late hours, which should eliminate some of the
complaints that the neighborhood had. The zoning issue is still an issue,
and I want to briefly discuss that with you. The general rule of law is that
even though a permit has been issued for an activity that's in violation of
the zoning ordinance, that there are no vested rights. The case seems to
imply that where the governing authority itself is the one that took action
even though it was in violation of the zoning ordinance but then allowed an
activity, either a sign or entertainment, whatever, to occur, even though the
property was not properly zoned, then there may be a vesting of rights.
There's no case directly on point, although that's the implication in the
decision that's closest on point. Last year this board did vote to renew
both the alcohol license and the dance hall license for Cafe DuTeau. I think
regardless of the decision that you make today, either side would have the
right to sue. The objectors would have the right to sue on the basis that
it's not properly zoned, and then it would be up to the Court to decide
whether or not an injunction should be issued. Likewise, in the event that
you were to deny the license to the Cafe, I think they could sue claiming that
they had a vested right by virtue of the action that was taken last year. I
do think that something was accomplished by post-poning it by virtue of our
getting the agreement from the Cafe owner to institute valet parking, which I
think will go a long way toward satisfying some of the concerns of the
neighborhood.
MR. LONG: Mr. Mayor, I'm Jack Long, I'm here on behalf of the neighbors
and the church, and I would like to have Mr. Fishburn pass out a letter to
everybody. Mr. Patty had written me a letter that I received yesterday
indicating this place has never been zoned for entertainment, and I'd like to
deliver our intention here. We're not opposed to the regular sale of liquor.
I mean, we've already crossed that -- I mean, we may be opposed to it, but
we've already crossed that bridge. We're here talking about Sunday sales and
we're here about live entertainment. Now, according to Mr. Patty, this place
has never been zoned properly for live entertainment, and if it never has been
zoned properly for live entertain-ment, we don't think y'all should approve it
for live entertainment. And going back to Sunday sales, we have tried to
settle this case. We have told the neighborhood and the church has told the
Cafe if you will limit Sunday sales and stop serving liquor at 11:00 and get
everybody out by 12:00 midnight that will be the end of it. And that's the
only reason we're down here, because the Cafe DuTeau has taken the position
that they can turn this place into a nightclub and a bar. I have personally
been there and seen what happens. After the last serving and the table-cloths
are taken off and all the young people and the people that go to bars, this
place turns into a bar in the evening and stays open till 2:00 a.m. We've
already addressed this issue before, and I would ask you in connection with
this to amend the motion to approve only regular alcohol sales, do not approve
Sunday sales at this time, and do not approve live entertainment at this time
until they are able to come up with some realistic accom-modation on Sunday
sales for this neighborhood. And I have Mr. Fishburn, I have the church, I
have other people here, I don't want to take up your time and have them all
talk unless the Commission wants to here from them.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Long, do you have a comment on the proposal of the
Cafe to institute valet parking? My under-standing is the issue is confined
basically to two or three of the neighbors who are directly -- their property
is contiguous to the parking lot, and that if we eliminated the disturbances
that occur in that parking lot at very late hours, two or three o'clock in the
morning, will that satisfy the neighbors?
MR. LONG: No, sir, it will not. Valet parking is not a way to satisfy -
- the only way to satisfy the neighbors is to come up with a realistic closing
time on Sunday evenings. Now, Sunday sales, the intent is you're supposed to
be allowed to serve alcoholic beverages with meals or shortly thereafter, not
to have a nightclub or a bar. Now, if this County Commission -- if we want to
go to the legislature, get the law changed, we'll have bars open on Sunday,
that's fine, but that's not the law now and I don't -- I ask you not to extend
this. I think if you extend it, it's going to be a bad precedent.
Furthermore, I think the zoning is a issue. Mr. Patty did this investigation.
This place has never been zoned for live entertainment. And, Mr. Zetterberg,
I don't think that -- I think the only realistic thing is to allow the
restaurant to stay open, approve their regular liquor sales, and don't approve
Sunday sales and don't approve live entertainment until they are willing to
come up with a realistic closing time on Sunday.
MR. TODD: How can we tie renewing this license to Sunday sales unless
the Sheriff's Department has filed complaints as far as violations or they're
not meeting their fifty percent? I can understand, you know, and I think this
is maybe the first time I've seen any reference to zoning. I've heard rumors
about it wasn't zoned properly, but I don't operate on rumors. So where I
would possibly willing to modify the motion based on the evidence presented
here by the attorney, I'm not willing to base a decision on this on whether
the community can negotiate a best scenario to the community out of this. I'm
not going to put that kind of leverage on the owner and I think it's wrong as
far as the property rights go to do that. Now, if the community feels that
they are being wronged on the Sunday operation, then I think that's a issue
for the community to address with the Sheriff's Department to get a case made
or whatever it take to go that route. I did review the video the last time
that we were here, or at least one of the times that we were here. I'm sure
that the video probably wasn't staged, it was probably the real thing
happening. But, you know, my question is was this a isolated incident in the
sense that it have several different occasions, you know, where this activity
is going on. I'm sure that if you wait long enough you probably can find
unacceptable conduct happening outside of most bars or restaurants in this
community. So, you know, that's just stating my position and I guess the
question as far as the rights of the property owners on holding them hostage
to give the community leverage to negotiate what they want. I can't do that
and won't do that. And I think we have two different issues here. One is the
zoning issue, which is covered by the zoning statute of the State of Georgia.
The other one is a alcohol issue to sell alcohol on Sunday, which is a
privilege, and it's covered by the Sunday sales law. And it's up to the
discretion of this Commission whether we grant them or not, but to take them
away, I think that we got to have due process and I don't see due process
here.
MR. LONG: Mr. Todd, I appreciate that, and I'm really sorry the
newspaper jumped on y'all when y'all tried to adopt the county standards. You
know, up until we had consolidation, outside of the city limits on Sunday the
county had a 12:00 time on Sunday sales. The city had a more liberal time,
and unfortunately we ended up with the more liberal time. Obviously the way to
do it, I think, would be to go back to the old county standards. But you're
right, you're talking about two issues. The zoning issue, I think, is clear.
I mean, Mr. Patty wrote that letter dated yesterday, they are not zoned for
live entertainment. If they're not zoned for live entertainment, then I don't
think y'all should approve live entertainment. But I think that's a pretty
focal issue I think Mr. Todd has raised [inaudible]. I do think it is a
privilege, I think y'all have seen evidence of the privilege being abused on
Sundays, and we're not trying to talk about any other day other than Sunday.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Long, let's talk about the Sunday sales, and I'm
going to tell you what the problem is. I'm very much in agreement with you,
but I cannot see why the Cafe DuTeau [inaudible]. I think there are
restaurants in this town that are pushing the limit on what is Sunday sales.
I do believe there are restaurants that are not operating as a restaurant at
one o'clock in the morning on Monday morning and are not selling meals and
catering to the public dining delight and providing beverage to go along with
that. I've got to change a Sunday sales ordinance to change that, and there
does not seem to be the will in this community to do that. I can't single out
any one place without a complaint from the Sheriff's Department or somewhere
else. And the fact that they meet all the legal qualifications that we set
out --because I know their food sales are extremely high and the food sales is
the standard by which we have to go by to issue a Sunday sales license. But I
do agree with you that we as a community need to address the Sunday issue
after 11:00 to 12:00, somewhere in that range. I don't believe most of these
places that have Sundays sales are operating as a restaurant, and I agree very
much with that and I would like to see that to be changed. But I don't think
there's a will on this Commission, somebody doesn't want to make that motion
or a second, but I don't think you're going to find somebody willing to make
that motion.
MR. LONG: Mr. Brigham, I respect your opinion, but if that logic is
applied to the zoning, then they should not be allowed to have live
entertainment.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm only trying to deal with Sunday sales. I'm not going
to deal with the live entertainment [inaudible]. If they get separated, I'll
probably vote not to renew, but I will use the same logic in both cases.
MR. LONG: Well, I would ask someone to have a substitute motion to
separate the live entertainment then from the alcohol sales.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But I do think we've got to have some somewhere in this
community, and I think this community has brought it to a head, but I don't
know where that's going to be coming from, Because I personally [inaudible]
and there was no -- or I saw no food being served. I saw plenty of drinks
being served, but I did not see any food being served.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend my motion to drop the live
entertainment, and I guess I have a question to the County Attorney, if the
seconder of the motion will accept my amendment. Does live entertainment
consist of dance hall and bands coming in, et cetera, or what constitutes live
enter-tainment?
MR. WALL: As noted in Mr. Patty's letter, the zoning ordinance does not
provide a definition for entertainment, it just says excluding dancing and
entertainment in the B-1 zoning. So the dance hall ordinance itself deals with
dancing. It does not specifically talk about entertainment, but we have
always utilized the dance hall permit and license to cover live entertainment.
That's been the practical application of it. The fact of it is that this
establishment has had live entertainment apparently for a long number of years
even though it was not zoned for live entertainment, and so the question
becomes do they have a vested right to have that, and that was the discussion
that I tried to outline the legal parameters at the beginning of this
discussion. If it is simply an administrative act by an employee in License
and Inspection, I think the answer is no, they would not. However, last year
it did come before this body, this body did vote to renew that dance hall
license, and so arguably under that case, although it does not specifically
address it, but it implies that where the governing body itself takes that
action in renewing the license, then there are vested rights.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I understand now. I think that's the one
we used with other adult live entertainments that have vested rights. I don't
necessarily buy into that. You know, in my opinion, they have a right to go
down and file for a variance, and that opportunity is there, especially in
this case. And if they haven't done that, knowing that they don't have the
zoning, then -- you know, in my opinion, they share fifty percent of the
responsibility for acquiring a license or applying for a license without the
zoning, because there's a requirement that you have the zoning in order to get
this license. So will the seconder of the motion accept the amendment to drop
the live entertainment?
MR. KUHLKE: No, sir.
MR. TODD: Okay. Mr. Mayor, then I -- I understand that I cannot
withdraw the motion without the approval of the board, so I move that the
board allow me to withdraw my motion and let whomever would like to make a
motion make a motion, and that's in the form of a motion.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just make a comment on this. I
really believe that the situation can be solved without having to have all
this problem. The reality is there is a problem. We have got two neighbors
who are adjacent to the property who have had a continuous long-running battle
over this issue. It deals with the parking lot in the back now. I'm not
inclined to try to change the law because I think that that's as bad as making
a spot judgment on the Cafe DuTeau. But the situation could certainly be
solved if Mr. DuTeau would agree to close that particular parking lot on
Sunday night so that that is not a problem for the neighbors. That's the only
way that I can see that we all can get a win-win situation in this deal. I'd
like to make a motion that we table this and have the parties go back to the
table and see if they can come up with an agreement of closing that down.
Now, that does not include the problem with the live entertainment, but it
does solve a problem. And I think that that's the best that the neighbors are
going to get out of this situation, frankly, and I would hope that both
parties would agree to do that. I'll make a motion that we table this to
give the parties to the complaint and the Cafe an opportunity to go back
and discuss the possibility of closing that parking lot, the source of the
problem, on Sunday evenings so that we can solve the problem that way.
MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Wall would have to answer, I believe table would be till
the end of the meeting. Do you mean table or postpone to another date?
MR. ZETTERBERG: It's a postponement, unless they can go outside of this
room right now and decide on that.
MR. WALL: The motion to postpone this until the January 6th meeting, the
alcohol license is an annual license and it expires December 31. I think that
if you made the motion to postpone till January, it would be my position that
they could continue to operate under the existing license because y'all are
the ones that would be preventing them from renewal and there's not been any
action to terminate it. So even if it is postponed they could continue to
operate, in my opinion, until y'all take affirmative action that would deny
them that opportunity.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Then my motion to postpone would still remain in effect
unless the parties to this can say that they don't want to sit down at the
table and talk and see if they can solve the problem without some legal
[inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: So this would be a substitute motion, right? And the
other one didn't get a second, so -- MR. WALL: Mr. Todd has made a
motion to withdraw his motion, but that has not been seconded.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second Mr. Todd's motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Todd's motion died while ago. So if you want
to make a motion, it's now the substitute.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, point of order, how many motions do we have on the
floor, and which one is it?
MAYOR SCONYERS: The main motion is Mr. Todd's original motion.
MR. MAYS: Okay. The motion then that Mr. Zetterberg made, is it a
substitute motion or -- MR. WALL: Substitute motion.
MR. MAYS: Okay. But if the original died from lack of a second, then
how many do we have?
CLERK: No, Mr. Todd's motion to withdraw his motion is the motion that
died for lack of a second. Would you like for me to read the motions, Mr.
Mayor?
MR. MAYS: I'd like to hear what is still in Mr. Todd's motion.
CLERK: Okay. The original motion from Mr. Todd was to renew the license
with exclusion of the live entertainment --no, that did not -- was amended.
So the original motion -- MR. MAYS: So the one he made first still
stands and is still on the floor?
CLERK: Yes, sir, as it stands. And then he made another motion to
withdraw. It did not receive a second, so it died.
MR. MAYS: So his original motion is still on the floor. Whether he likes
it or not, it's still on the floor. Thank you, that's all I wanted to know.
CLERK: Yes. Now we have a main motion and a substitute.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, on the substitute motion -- and I'll debate the
original motion at the same time. I think we set a dangerous precedence if we
issue a license to someone to do live entertainment or to run a junkyard or
whatever under the wrong zoning and our folks don't catch it, or let's say the
petitioner use false pretence in obtaining that, then we come along a year or
two down the road when this is having a negative impact on the community and
say, well, because they obtained the license they have a vested right. I
think that we got to know more about this than the letter that I have in front
of me. I would need to review the city records, the minutes of the City
Council meetings, to determine whether they have a vested right. If at the
time the City Council issued this license they knew and discussed the issue
for the zoning and knew the zoning wasn't proper, then I think that the County
Attorney and the folks involved and for the owner of the Cafe DuTeau would
have a argument. But, in my opinion, they don't have one based on what I
know. If they obtained a license knowing that it wasn't zoned and qualified
to have that license, then that license, in my opinion, should be null and
voided and they have to apply for a variance in the zoning or for rezoning in
order to maintain that license or to have that license reissued. And
basically we are reissuing the license in this application for the renewal of
the dance hall license, and the dance hall is considered live entertainment,
and the alcohol license Monday through Saturday, and the Sunday sales license.
And I agree that, you know, there are two separate issues here. The
issue that I'm most concerned about is not the Sunday sales. In my opinion,
the plaintiffs or the folks that's in opposition to the Sunday sales haven't
provided me enough evidence to warrant me to vote against the renewal of
Sunday sales. The issue, in my opinion, here is the live entertainment or
dance hall license. And where I made the original motion to go on and support
this, I wasn't given an opportunity to withdraw it, I will vote against that
now. I will most likely vote for the substitute knowing that the two parties
is never going to come together. And I think it's the responsibility of this
board to do what's right, what's within the law, as far as this entertainment
license go. And the other issue is until the Sheriff's Department brings
evidence to this board for a hearing to revoke that other license, the Sunday
sales license or the alcohol beverage license, then we shouldn't deal with
that. So that's where I'm at and that will be the way that I would vote, for
the substitute motion.
MR. HUNTER: First of all, I appreciate Mr. Zetterberg's suggestion;
however, there's two things that I'd like to make. When I was discussing with
Mr. Wall about the parking situation, there are three entrances to that
parking lot. We could not come up with a way ourselves to block all of those
entrances, and it's also someone else's property. It's not Mr. DuTeau's
property which the parking is on. We have the owner here and would speak on
his behalf. This was a logical solution on our part to address those concerns
of the parking lot situation by having a valet park the cars back there and
bring the cars to the front of the restaurant so that they could be moved.
The second issue which I wish to address to Mr. Todd is concerning the zoning.
I think if some of y'all read the newspaper editorial, I think I can clarify
some of that for you. The city during that time had an entertainment license
and a dance hall license. I provided y'all a copy of the ordinance which
y'all passed on the dance hall license, which basically tracked the language
of the county's ordinance, not the city's ordinance, and that's because most
of y'all came from that body or were looking at it from that point of view.
However, the city, when it issued that license to the Cafe DuTeau -- and we
have copies of all the licenses from the 1970's for entertainment licenses
issued by the city. When the consolidated government came along they did not
distinguish. They have a dance hall license which covers both dance halls and
entertainment licenses. They told Mr. DuTeau that he should fall under the
dance hall category because they didn't have any other place to place him.
So that's how we've come into an apparent violation of the zoning ordinance
which has been pointed out by Mr. Patty. However, if you read that ordinance
carefully it says a dance hall license is only needed for a place that has
dancing, and that's why I wanted to give you a copy of that. There are many
restaurants in this town who have a guitar player or someone else playing in
their restaurant, and I've been in them, who do not even purchase a dance hall
-- any type of license and do not feel that they need to because of the way
they've interpreted that ordinance. I think it's an admirable part on Mr.
DuTeau's part to contribute some to the income of this government by buying a
license which he may not -- may or may not necessarily need to buy. He has
done that out of abundance of caution because he had purchased one from the
city and had done that. This Commission voted to renew his entertainment
license last year by a vote of 6-3-1, and we can go back and look, but y'all
renewed that based upon the changing in the ordinance from
the entertainment to a dance hall license. Now -- and I believe that that is
a vested right that y'all conferred upon Mr. DuTeau. And y'all may need to
revisit looking at distinguishing that ordinance somehow in a situation
because I think most of y'all will agree that there is not dancing going on at
that restaurant and that's not the purpose of his entertainment. And I also
want to further state that it isn't a rock-and-roll band that he has there, it
is a jazz band, and is usually a piano player named Buzz Clifford. But also,
Mr. Zetterberg, we have neighbors here who approved, and so who do we
negotiate with, two of the neighbors or six of the neighbors, or which of the
neighbors do we negotiate with? And we provided you a copy of the list of the
neighbors who support Mr. DuTeau. Thank you very much.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let's go back to the Sunday sales side of this. I want
to hear your side of it. The fact that y'all are a restaurant is the only
reason you have a Sunday sales license? I want to hear what your argument is
on the Sunday sales as to why we should not allow all bars to open up on
Sunday night if we're going to allow a restaurant that ceases to operate as a
restaurant and become a bar after the restaurant closes.
MR. HUNTER: I believe that -- and I understood and I had a report that
you were down at that restaurant at one o'clock. Also, I think that you would
have found that a fire was still going in the oven, that there were pizzas
still being sold at that time. It was interesting to me about Mr. Long
talking about them taking off the tablecloths. There are two table-cloths on
each of the tables. There's an undercloth, which is a pink cloth, and then
there is a white one over it. Well, those tablecloths are changed every time
someone eats at the Cafe DuTeau, and it doesn't matter what time of night, and
they are replaced on there and they are reset after each diner leaves. And I
have been there enough that I can tell you that that's what occurs, and he has
one person who just does the ironing of that linen because he uses so much of
it. Now, as far as the restaurant, I think that that's -- I did not see
[inaudible] that they are intending to serve food. I realize that there are
some people who want to come and have a drink and listen to the band. I don't
question that whatsoever. But I think that that also provides for the
atmosphere that makes the Cafe so unique.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I basically will let the comments that I made about
six weeks ago when this issue was first voted on kind of speak for themselves,
and I think pretty much everybody in this room knows where I stand on this
particular issue, so there's no need for me to rehash that. However, we look
like we're going into a different direction in reference to the question of
zoning and whether or not someone has violated the law. Now, it's true -- I
guess it's like if you receive a product and you don't pay for it, you say,
well, I didn't get a bill. Well, I think in that kind of case, yeah, you
could blame someone. But I think that in a case where a business versus a
citizen does not write or make the law, basically conforms to the law as it's
written, then I think if folk want the law to say something different they
should do one thing: they should first lobby to get the law changed. It's
hard for me to sit when I hear a business making applica-tion and receiving
licensing over a decade, particularly on the entertainment side, and whatever
the requirements were of that previous government, I don't think anyone has
proven first that a law was violated by the person applying for it or whether
or not there was a law that was in place on the city side of Augusta to
violate. The next thing that I think is that you do have some vested rights
to a point when we start getting into the property issue of what's not
grandfathered and then all of a sudden we want to make somebody's grandfather
different because we don't like the law, but we still have not changed the
law. I think, Mr. Mayor, the bottom line in this, and I got voted down
before, was the fact that the question should be whether or not you've got a
public nuisance or not. And it's hard also for me as a policymaker to make a
decision when I ask my folk who maybe be specialists with the Sheriff's
Department, people who are there in Vice and Narcotics, we base taking a
license, suspending a license, or putting a license on probation in those
cases depending upon ninety-nine percent of the time what law enforcement
brings to us. I find myself very awkward and stupid in terms of trying to
take a license and you turn to law enforcement and the licensing people and
they say we have not made any charges, we do not have a problem. I said then,
I say now, if there's a problem that's causing a nuisance, then let law
enforcement do its job on this one particular location and license holder.
We started the whole process off wrong by trying to change the Sunday sales
law and completely chop off the head of everybody doing business. I think
probably if we had not had a political response from the other business
owners, everybody from hotel/motel owners and restaurants that complained as
to really how asinine that change was and was going to be, and cumbersome,
then we might have gotten away with it. But that was not a good law that was
there. And I respect everybody in the room. I got friends on both sides of
this issue from both sides of the attorneys, both sides of the neighborhood,
but I think you got to separate business from the friendship side of it. I
think one thing Mr. Wall I agree on is the fact that you're probably still
going to have an argument, you're probably still going to have something legal
to debate. But I think when you start talking about the possibilities of
closing somebody up, altering what their income may be when they have
basically abided to this point and to whatever presentation by whatever law
they did not write nor did they put into effect, it makes it hard, I think, it
puts us on the wrong side of the law to start getting into that business of
changing rules in the middle of the game. And so I'm going to support --
even though the maker of the motion is not supporting his own motion, I'm
going to support it that it stays exactly like it is. And then if we got to
have a court fight, it won't be the first time that folks sue each other. It
may be that that's what it's going to end up being, but I don't think we ought
to be in the putting-out-of-business business when places are ten/twenty years
old, applied for whatever license we ask them to apply for, paid their fees,
and then if declared a nuisance we have no one from law enforcement that can
step forward and say there has been a violation. This cannot be legislated, I
don't believe, from this body at this point based on what we've got. And the
only thing I see to do, grant them the darn license and let law enforcement do
its job. If you got violations of public nuisance, moral turpitude, or
whatever it might be, then bring that case back and let's deal with that. But
changing this darn thing is like down five, ball four, you know, strike two,
whatever we want to make it. We can't do that. You know, what happens when
the next owner that we have a nit-picking problem with that we want to change
all the city's ordinances to deal with one place? And we cannot keep doing
that. We accepted it into the new consolidated system, and whether or not
the law was liberal or conservative on the closing time the City of Augusta
had it, people based their businesses on it, they set their standards to make
an income off of what laws that city provided, we in turn voted on it as a new
government and accepted it. So I see nowhere where the party that's involved
changed, altered, or tried to violate the law. And if there's a violation,
then I ask the License people to do like they do in marriage: License people
or law enforcement step forward now, state your case, or forever hold your
peace. And if we got one, y'all from License, Sheriff's Department -- they're
not even here and we're debating this out of a hundred and twenty-two items.
I think if you got a violation of vice, narcotics or whatever, they would be
here, and that ought to say something to us.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? Read the substitute
motion made by Mr. Zetterberg first.
CLERK: Yes, sir. Substitute motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr.
Powell, was to postpone this application to give all parties an opportunity to
discuss the issue of closing the back parking lot on Sunday evenings.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, Mr. Wall, let's clarify this. They can still
operate now until something is done by this body; is that correct?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. They've done everything they need to do in order to
comply with getting it renewed, and so, yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that
was understood. Next item, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: Yes, sir. We will consider Item 114: Approve KMC as account
manager of our current BellSouth services. This is a "conversion as is" and
all services will remain the same. This will result in a savings of
$205,246 over the next 12 months.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. BRIDGES: I make a substitute motion that we approve Southern Bell
-- maintain Southern Bell.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: Southern Bell is a good corporate citizen in this community,
but in considering the situation that we're going through as a government
right now in trying to find the shortfall in the budget going into 1998, I
find it very hard for me as a Commissioner to turn down the potential savings
that KMC is offering this community. My question to Mr. Oliver is this: The
staff, I'm assuming, Mr. Oliver, has satisfied itself that KMC is an
organization that can perform the services that we need and that they have the
financial capabilities to back up their proposal?
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Rushton is in attendance, he can address that, but he
has made that indication to me.
MR. RUSHTON: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we have no problem with either
company, KMC or BellSouth. Both can do the job. What we are looking at here
is strictly dollars and cents. One is $100,000 cheaper than the other. Also
we're looking at service. The services will be the same. The only thing
we're doing is changing the account rep team and where we place our service
call. All services are still BellSouth services, the only thing different is
who do we pick up the phone and call. BellSouth will still service the
account, so what we're looking at is dollars and cents. Why not try to save
$100,000.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I seconded that because after sitting here
Saturday for six or seven hours trying to find some ways to cut, trying to
find some ways to gain more revenue, I can't see how I can sit here today when
we are going to have a savings of over $200,000 and vote for someone who
[inaudible]. It just doesn't make sense to me, and that's why I seconded that
motion for KMC. And they are doing the same service, as I understand it from
all of our staff.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I tried to look at this, you know, the big picture,
and what the payback to this government is as far as the savings go and who is
doing the most with this government in this government, and I would just
mention a couple of issues. One, when it come to community and economic
development, it's BellSouth. When it come to the issue of moving the local
service provider office that service most of our citizens here from Augusta to
Columbia, and we went to BellSouth, they come through for us and they kept the
citizens service office here in Augusta. I note when I'm going on the fly-
ins, the Chamber trips to D.C. to lobby for this community, it's usually
someone from BellSouth sitting beside me. And Georgia Power go along and some
of the other industry folks around the community also. When I look at the
franchise fees and who collect those franchise fees, ever who's going to
collect the franchise fees that we're negotiating now, it's BellSouth. I
understand the service is going to be the same, but I also understand that we
may lose more than we're gaining in the $100,000 in question at a time when
we're sitting down negotiating and talking franchise fees, community
development, industrial development, and in other areas. I sit on a national
task force the NACO president, National Association of Counties, appointed me
to on utility deregulation, and I can assure that one of the issues that we're
looking at, not who can provide the cheapest service in deregulation, but who
do the industrial and community development and at what cost, who is to
provide the service to the person that no one else want to provide the service
for. That's all considered, and I would have to consider all that here. So I
don't know that we're getting as big a bargain as it appears in the small
picture if we look at the big picture. Thank you.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I received a sheet on my desk here and I
didn't know whether this had any bearing on what we're talking about today or
maybe there's an explanation in the book. Whoever sent it out, I'd like to
hear something as far as from BellSouth. It shows some figures, and I don't
know whether those figures have already been approved or already calculated,
but I think we ought to -- I'd like to at least. They're talking about
$100,000. Does this have any bearing on that $100,000 difference?
SPEAKER: Of course, that's up to y'all to decide. We've bent y'alls
ears probably for three or four weeks on this. And I sat up here with y'all
on Saturday and I know you've got a tough task ahead of you on the budget.
What can I say about BellSouth? I think Mr. Todd echoed it. You know us, you
trust us, we pay you about two million dollars a year in taxes, we invest
annually about five million dollars in the network infrastructure, we've given
about two million dollars to the area charities in the city, we have about a
twenty million dollar payroll here in the consolidated government area -- I
could go on and on. I mean, everybody knows our employees. We're on the
boards, we're in the churches, we work here. We've got a hundred and fifty
employees that live and work here in Richmond County and pay taxes. Taking
nothing away from our competitor, BellSouth worked ten long years to get the
National Telecom Act. I know because I worked on it for ten years and flew
back and forth to Washington trying to get the bill passed to help to create
an environment that we have today where a good company like KMC could come in
and have competition. And it's fortuitous for the city that this has come
now. When KMC came in here and began operations, they then triggered -- when
they or any other competitor makes a competitive move against one of our
customers, they trigger the [inaudible] that we operate under which allows us
to then and only then step forward and offer our own discounts. And we've
got a three-year package on the table in front of you. Even though we're in
an environment right now at BellSouth where daily everything changes for us,
the federal government, the state government or regulatory bodies are changing
access fees and everything that we get and the world is turning upside down
for us far as calculating what our revenue will be or won't be, say, next
week, but even in that environment we have stepped up the largest discount
that we have ever made and made a three-year commitment, leaving Randy the
option to rebid every twelve months, but we will still stick by that three-
year $324,000 plus commitment that we made to you. Does that answer your
question?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: That sheds some light.
SPEAKER: Okay. But I would say we're glad for the taxpayers in that
they will get a break. Naturally I support my team and I'm proud of the
service we have provided here. We started here. We've been in business since
1879 just right down the street on Greene Street here. Go down there and see
the plaque. This is where BellSouth -- Southern Bell opened for service. Not
in Atlanta, not in New Jersey or anywhere else, we opened here in Augusta.
We've been here a hundred and eighteen years, and we've been proud to be your
service provider for this past century and naturally we'd like to carry that
forward over into the twenty-first century. So whatever happens, the tax-
payers are going to get a break and it's coming at a good time, so I would say
-- I will just personally say Merry Christmas.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, you mentioned last time -- you were asked the
question are we comparing apples to apples and you said no as far as this
bidding goes. It's my understanding that's still the case?
MR. OLIVER: There are some subtle distinctions in the two proposals, and
Mr. Rushton can explain that better, but those subtle proposals have to do
with the fact that there are certain guaranteed minimum contract requirements
under the BellSouth proposal in that you have to have a certain number of
dollars you're going to guarantee to pay them. We believe it's somewhat
unlikely that the service will go below that, but there's a possibility of
that. The pros and the cons are identified in the agenda item. If you'll
look at that in the back, it'll list the pros and the cons. And Mr. Rushton
may want to further elaborate on that.
MR. RUSHTON: If you look at the pros and cons that were in the agenda
item, I think what Randy is referring to is the volume term agreement. That
is a pro for the KMC compared to the BellSouth, but like Randy stated, we
don't think we'll fall below that amount anyway. The area of pros and cons is
that with KMC this is a no risk. I mean, we can do it for one month, we can
do it for five months, if we're unsatisfied we can return back to BellSouth.
I mean, that was the only reason we looked at and recommended the way we were
going was it looked like somebody was trying to give us a $100,000 savings
that we could step up and take with no risk, and that's why we recommended it.
The service is still going to be BellSouth. They'll still come and fix our
phones and do our phones. It's the same service treatment, the only thing
different is the account team. BellSouth will still be getting, you know,
their money for all services and everything we're doing, it's just the account
team we'll be dealing with.
SPEAKER: Can Mr. Stan Sheppard, our marketing person, clarify something
relating to what Clifton said on the agenda item?
MR. BRIDGES: Can I ask him a question first, Mr. Sheppard? If we do this
for three months with KMC and then decide, you know, that we don't like them,
are we still saving $200,000?
MR. RUSHTON: No, the savings will be for the time that we use KMC.
MR. OLIVER: It would be prorated, so it'd be three-twelfths of two
hundred and five.
MR. SHEPPARD: Just to clarify a little bit quickly as far as the account
team and how the account executive changes. I need everybody to understand
that an entire division of BellSouth Business Systems--our division is called
BellSouth Business Systems--goes away. That does not only include an account
manager or an account executive, that is also a systems designer, a group of
service consultants that have serviced your account for a number of years.
They average years with the company of about twenty-seven years with the
company. We've got a dedicated CSA that handles your account that provides
services to you from a marketing and sales perspective. We have a business
repair center that's open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, that is
a BellSouth Business Systems entity. That does go away when a customer
chooses to do business with a KMC, from a BellSouth perspective. That is no
longer a service that is provided by BellSouth, that would have to be provided
by your [inaudible], and that was one of the main points that I was wanting to
make. Also, just to let you know the way that this works, Augusta-Richmond
County Consolidated Government would no longer be a customer of record to
BellSouth. KMC would be that customer of record. I wanted to point that out
as well. We would not have any ability to go into your records and help you
with anything like that, you would have to fall back on KMC for all those
services, and I just want to make that clarification.
MR. BRIDGES: As far as KMC being an account manager, what does that term
mean and what will that mean as far as our relationship with you and with KMC?
MR. SHEPPARD: In years past your account manager has been a BellSouth
employee. But I wanted to clarify that because not only does the account
manager change, and that's some of what I was speaking to, your entire
marketing staff changes and goes away from BellSouth. All of your repair goes
away from BellSouth as far as -- now, when I say repair, I want to clarify and
make sure there's no misunderstanding. That is not the technicians. I'm
talking about the repair center that you call in to place your repair orders.
That goes away. You know, KMC would play the role of account manager, they
would also have to play the role, you know, of all the other entities that we
have within BellSouth Business Systems that would go away on this. As I said,
you know, systems designer, service consultant, customer service
representative that we have dedicated to your account, as well as that
business repair center.
MR. MAYS: I think the true spirit of our American and democratic process
is giving everybody a shot, and I don't have a problem with that at all. But
I do think, and y'all have gotten tired of me making that arguing point, the
fact that our bid system and you've got to have it and you've got to have it
competitive. But one of the reasons that I think we have within the law, and
the provisions deal with particularly professional services, is that being
exactly what it says in terms of service. And this is not to demean or to
promote either company. I know that we're talking about the one-year aspect
and the savings of it, and that's what's within the provisions of what was
advertised. I kind of tend to like to look beyond hopefully the fact that we
won't celebrate Independence Day as they did in the movie and this will be the
last day we'll be in business, but, you know, it's going to be a tomorrow.
And I like to look at what can be guaranteed in terms of just -- and I don't
like to use the term quick fix, but, you know, sometimes we've been the
victims in government of where we do say, and then we look around twelve to
fourteen months later and we are revisiting those prospects all over again.
I've got one that's on my mind right now that I question from the standpoint
that we've just done a bid and it met the numbers requirements, and I think
both firms are professional, both of them ethical, but with one of them the
servicing aspects, personnel, will be less. And I'm not talking about this
particular deal here, but these are the type of things that I think when we're
talking about budgetary considerations we've got to keep in mind the fact that
'97, '98 [inaudible]. You know, what happens in twelve months, do we come
back and then we play another numbers game. I like to hope that servicing
and numbers would have some equal ability in this overall scheme of what we're
doing, because when you -- and you're right, you've got to give everybody a
fair shake when you're dealing with governmental monies, but by the same
token, I would probably feel more comfortable if we were realizing, and it may
be too late for that situation, if we were realizing, say, a guaranteed
savings probably over a longer period of time as opposed to dealing with, you
know, a twelve-month situation. Because if we're back to deal with that again
and vote, you know, what happens then if we flip back -- and I hate to use the
term back on your knees begging with who you had. But then BellSouth wins it
the next year and gets twelve months, then do we come out with somebody, you
know, at that time with a new company on the market who comes along the next
year and then they're in business and you switch those numbers. That's the
kind of game I don't want us to get to.
MR. RUSHTON: Well, let me respond to that. Our group, our department,
we looked through this. First of all, you know, we worked well with BellSouth
and we continue to work well with BellSouth. That's not a problem. KMC, we
felt comfortable we can work with KMC and we thought we would lose no level of
service and we can move forward there. Otherwise, we would not be making this
proposal. Information technology is moving very fast. In a twelve to
eighteen-month time frame each one of you has got a personal computer. It's
turned around and there's a new and better one out there, and that will
continue. The reason we did this for twelve months -- I know we're saying we
don't want to do it for twelve. If we find a company that does good service
and works well with us and we think that that's, you know, value over the
price amount that we can save, that's something to look at. And when you're
looking at the amount that we're talking about here, we think [inaudible].
Twelve months from now when we review this, there will be more companies than
KMC and BellSouth in here. We will be reviewing more companies. This will be
a competitive business compared to what it's been in the past. What we were
looking for is the dollar savings. We'll be ready to run in March with
whatever orders y'all give us. We were just looking at dollars and cents and
that's all, and that's the reason we did it the way we did it.
MR. MAYS: I can understand you looking at the dollars and cents. I was
just kind of hoping you look a little bit beyond dollars and cents, you know,
because sometimes -- and I guess that's why many motions are made on a best
bid and not necessarily the low bid, because if you're looking for dollars and
cents, then you approve what's low. And I'm not saying that the lowest one is
not the best bid. I don't want to get in caught in that framework for saying
that. But I'm saying if your dollars-and-cents driven, then you're not
necessarily then applying the service part of the quotation in there as much
as you would just the numbers thing.
MR. RUSHTON: We did the service part first. Service was equal, which we
think we could get equal, then we went to dollars and cents. If we didn't the
think the service was there, we wouldn't be recommending the low bid. I think
it would be well for this Commission to listen to KMC and let them respond to
how this would work also while we're here.
MR. KUHLKE: A couple of things. First, I would like to remind my
colleagues that on December the 30th, the ones that are pushing to spend
$100,000, I want you to remember that when we try to cut three million; okay?
I just want you to think about that a little bit. The other thing is this:
If KMC is representing the county and something needs to be done, the
difference, the way I understand it, rather than somebody from the county
calling BellSouth to get something done, KMC will call BellSouth; is that
correct?
MR. SHEPPARD: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, all I'm saying is that the service provided by KMC
would be in conjunction with BellSouth, but KMC would be the intermediary
between the county and BellSouth; am I right?
MR. SHEPPARD: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: So what's changing other than we don't have a person that
can pick up the phone and can call an accountant executive from the county,
but we call somebody from KMC and then they call BellSouth? What's the
difference?
MR. SHEPPARD: They call BellSouth and they call it into what we call a
vendor -- it's a vendor center that deals with KMC. What changes is the
number of years of experience that BellSouth Business Systems, which is your
sales and marketing arm, has in doing business with Augusta-Richmond County.
Your account executive goes away. The call from KMC does not come then to me,
you know, instead of Clifton calling me, it goes to the vendor repair center.
So a lot of the knowledge that has, you know, taken ten to twenty some odd
years to build up within our marketing organization, that's what goes away.
We as a company, as BellSouth, have provided those points to KMC in order to
be a reseller. They will be able to call KMC, that does not change, just
where the call is placed.
MR. TODD: Did I understand my colleague, Mr. Mayor, to say three million
dollars [inaudible] December 30th? I brought the budget with me, I believe
it's two million dollars in capital outlay if we're not balanced [inaudible].
You know, we have a contingency in general operating funds of $733,000. Am I
right on that, Mr. Oliver?
MR. OLIVER: I don't think anything has been decided, Mr. Todd.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe I still have the floor. And, Mr. Mayor,
also, we're in negotiations with BellSouth on franchise fees. And I'm not
saying that this could impact the franchise fees, what we're able to get, one
way or the other,
but I do understand at this time that we are not receiving what we should
receive from BellSouth from being a reorganized government. And I'd like to
go into those negotiations in good spirit especially, and the net of this
overall could be a lot greater, and I can assure you it's going to be a lot
greater than $100,000 or $200,000 in the sense that they're only paying, I
believe, one percent or a percentage of the old urban service district. And
we negotiated this with Georgia Power and I think the net was several million
dollars, and I'm sure that we're going to have a significant net with
BellSouth. And we can go at this one of two ways, we can go at this in
the courts and challenge the new government in being a city or reorganized
government or we can go at it in negotiations like we did with Georgia Power.
And I'm not saying this to necessarily use it as leverage to win one way or
the other on this, but I think all the facts need to be put out on the table
as to where we're at as far as the budget go and that we're also looking for
increases in franchise fees, which we put a conservative figure in the budget
somewhat in the sense what we're not collecting, and it would be just as
important as that $100,000 that you want to have in the hand now as that out
there in the bush may be as important or more important. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read
the substitute motion first, please?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Substitute motion made by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr.
Mays, was to remain with BellSouth as the account manager.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BEARD, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: No action. Go back to the original motion.
CLERK: The original motion was to approve KMC as the account manager.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, MAYS, POWELL & TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: No action.
CLERK: Presentation: United Way of the CSRA to Augusta-Richmond County.
MR. BRINSON: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, on behalf of the
United Way of the CSRA I'm here to do two things: to thank Augusta-Richmond
County for an outstanding campaign in what you do for this community and to
present an award. If you've been watching lately, our United Way has been
working very hard to reach its potential and to be the kind of organization we
could be for this community. And I'm here to say thank you for all you do,
because at our victory celebration where we announced that we made our 3.9
million goal we had an award, and it's a Silver Award, and it was to recognize
the highest increase in campaigns of all our campaigns over $10,000. And that
award was presented to Augusta-Richmond County and I want to publicly, on
behalf of United Way and this community, present that award to you today. An
outstanding campaign. Our United Way is in the third year of a five-year
vision and we're pretty much on target for that five-year vision. This is a
victory for our community and something we all should be proud of. When
you look at your campaign here, we're talking about a campaign in excess of
$26,000. You were able to increase participation from twelve to twenty-eight
percent, and you had thirteen departments that participated or gave for the
first time. You had sixty-one percent of your departments who increased
giving from '96 to '97. Some of those departments that I'd like to -- a few
of the top ones in terms of increases I'd like to recognize would be Water
Works, the Administrator's Office, Trees and Parks, Animal Control, and the
Sheriff's Department. You also had a dramatic increase in the number of
leadership givers, and what I would like to do is just acknowledge Randy
Oliver for his leadership and the department heads for their leadership for
setting an aggressive campaign goal. One thing we really are depressed about
and we're really disappointed, we missed Randy Oliver shaving his head by --
MR. OLIVER: I pick my numbers carefully. They were close, though.
MR. BRINSON: It was, and we just missed it, and maybe we'll get him next
year. And then finally what I want to do is recognize the person standing
beside me that has really been there for United Way and this campaign for
years. For the last five years, she's really worked in terms of the United
Way campaign. She has served on our campaign executive committee and cabinet,
as well as our board, and has really worked tirelessly to strengthen this
campaign not only in your organization but in this community, and she deserves
a great debt of gratitude. So Pam Tucker, on behalf of United Way in this
community and for the Augusta-Richmond County, I'd like to present the Silver
Award for the highest increase in the campaign over $10,000.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN]
CLERK: We will now consider the Finance portion of our agenda. Items 17
through 29 were approved by the Finance Committee on December 8th.
[Item 17: Motion to approve participation in the Georgia Fund One
Local Government Investment Pool. Item 18: Motion to approve 1997
budget for the Clerk of Civil Court in the amount of $4,000.00. Item
19: Motion to approve refund prior year taxes, 1995 and 1996, in the
amount of $447.86 for overpayment of taxes on Map 30, Parcel 110. Item
20: Motion to approve refund prior year taxes, 1996, in the amount of
$11,840.54 for overpayment of taxes on Account No. 2031444. Item 21:
Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes, 1996, for overpayment of
taxes as follows: Map 71-4, Parcel 14, $673.96; Map 71-2, Parcel 297,
$314.13; Map 71-2, Parcel 296, $613.00; totaling $1,601.09. Item 22:
Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes (1994, 1995, 1996) in the
amount of $1,190.61 for overpayment of taxes on Account No. 1053545
(subject to Attorney's approval). Item 23: Motion to approve refund
of prior year taxes (1994, 1995, 1996) in the amount of $319.29 for
overpayment of taxes in Boat Account 200740602 (subject to Attorney's
approval). Item 24: Motion to approve waiver of 1997 property taxes
in the amount of $683.10 for 404 Walker Street, $1,006.43 for 412 Walker
Street, and $845.52 for 414 Walker Street, which belong to The Hale House
Foundation. Item 25: Motion to approve compensation of $300.00 per
month since July 1, 1997, to Judge Hamrick for serving as Chief Judge of
State and Municipal Court. Item 26: Motion to approve budget
amendment in the amount of $125,000 for City Attorney. Item 27:
Deleted from agenda. Item 28: Motion to approve abatement of 1997
taxes on Map 131, Parcel 99, Windsor Spring Road, Collier Land Management.
Item 29: Motion to receive as information the Third Quarter 1997
Financial Results.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends Items 17
through 29 be taken as a consent agenda.
MR. BEARD: I'll second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES ABSTAINS ON ITEM 20.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1, ITEM 20.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 17-19, 21-29.
CLERK: Item 31: Motion to approve Internal Audit Department.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, on Item Number 31 the committee did not
take any action. We tied in that. It is my recommendation that we proceed
with this, and I would so move that we authorize the Administrator to
proceed with the organization of an Internal Audit Department and to do the
things necessary to staff that department.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. OLIVER: The costs are in the agenda item backup. It's essentially a
wash.
MR. BEARD: I would only like to add that hopefully if we're going to
pursue this, that we would be transferring personnel -- if we decide to go
with an Internal Audit Department locally, then hopefully we would look at the
possibility of -- eventually look at the possibility of transferring personnel
into that department if that's what we're going to pursue.
MR. OLIVER: If we have qualified personnel, we certainly will.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor, if we could, could we go to the addendum agenda to
Item 1, please? To approve participation in the GMA 1997 Lease Pool
Program.
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: It's my understanding, Mr. Mayor, when we put this item on the
agenda, that we have no plans of using it, but we just want to have an
opportunity [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: Commissioner Todd, we had proposed in the budget to do some
leasing. Who we may do that leasing with has not been decided, but this would
be one of the options available to us, and that would be resolved as part of
the budgetary or some subsequent process. But there has been no commitment
made at this point.
MR. TODD: And what is the cost of keeping the option open?
SPEAKER: My name is [inaudible]. I would like to point out that this is
a joint program of the Georgia Municipal Association and the Association of
County Commissioners of Georgia and is a pooled option for all the
participants. While your funds [inaudible], there's no cost to the entity. The
only cost will come into place when you actually use funds for any sort of
equipment lease that you choose to do in the future. The City of Augusta and
the consolidated government has not participated in our program for seven
years, entering into your eighth year, and this would be a new option
[inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve bid award of vehicle maintenance
service contract to Tecom Fleet Services for January 1, 1998 through
December 31, 1998. No recommendation from Finance Committee.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the committee made no recommendation, and
I as Chairman would like to make a motion we approve this contract.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. MAYS: I'm not on that committee either, but I would guess -- is
there a -- I guess I would like to hear where we are on the savings aspect of
it. But probably more importantly, I know that when we deal with
privatization in government and we get through the trial period of
particularly where we place employees under the auspices of a private group,
what I guess I wanted to bring up during discussion --and this gets back, I
guess, to another one of those contractual situations of where we naturally
have to deal with the numbers, we got to deal with the bid process. And I'm
asking the question, and I'm not criticizing now, but I'm asking mainly for
information. Where do we stand in this process, even though I've heard that,
particularly since that two-year period, that those folks now don't belong to
us, they are part of whatever particular private group may bid to run a
particular department. But with it being such a buzz word and the
possibilities of looking at other departments that this may come into -- and I
guess this is about as good a time as any to be able to ask the question. How
are we in terms of the stabilization of benefits and other things for those
folk that I guess are pretty much semi-family now but used to be whole family,
do they at some point get kicked out of total inheritance if we lose them?
I still feel somewhat of a kinship from the standpoint that they were placed
there because we did what we thought was a good thing in terms of
privatization. But what I don't want to see, and I guess this is maybe where
I may differ from some of the others of the Commission, is that I think in
these situations of service that we got to look at every aspect of it.
Because what I don't want to see, as people get older, and particularly with
benefit situations, that we don't get caught in the situation that we can't
control but yet we are directly voting on folks' lives and we are placing them
possibly with -- whether it be insurance, whether it be pension, whether it be
other items that may change on an annual basis, may change every twenty-four
months. And I'm just throwing that out there to get some feedback on it.
SPEAKER: I'll be more than happy to respond. We have basically three
categories of people today. We have the county employees that started under
the original contract in March of '95. There are currently sixteen of those
people still employed in the current contract. We have twelve city employees
that, during the consolidation period, that renewed contract in March of '96.
Then we have the third group of people which are, in fact, current county
employees -- [end of Tape 1]. One thing the review committee wanted to make
sure of was, in fact, incidents regarding the pay and the benefits and so
forth. All the proposers that submitted bids have stated that they will
provide the same or more rate of pay than the employees are currently making
today. In regards to the proposal, everyone submitted their bid with that
cost calculated with their bid. Ryder submitted two bids: one was for a
reduced employee wage bid and one at the current wage. Employee benefits will
stay basically the same across the board with all of the proposers. The only
difference is that Baker, the second lowest contractor, offered a dental and
vision plan that all the rest of the proposers do not. Longevity, seniority,
which is another concern, we've also stated and required that all proposers
understand that we would recognize the date of hire into the contract of the
county or the city employees. So anyone who was hired under the original
contract in March of '95 basically have seniority from that date forward into
whoever has the new contract in '98. So we tried to make sure that we've
taken care of those employees who were ex-government employees who have served
us well, and we will continue to do that in each and every additional contract
if there are any, and we would make sure that we guarantee that level of
support from our side to our kin, as you said.
MR. MAYS: I think you're also doing a thorough job. Let me ask one
other question, and you may have answered it in the benefit package, but did
that also include or do you have any in terms of under the private companies a
life insurance plan?
SPEAKER: Yes. Everyone will be provided with a life insurance plan
regardless of which bidder it was. All the contractors have a life insurance
plan, all of them have health plans.
MR. MAYS: I know they have them, and I guess it would take an undertaker
to ask this question, but I want to make sure. And this has been my fight
when we were trying to get a good one for our own employees that aren't in a
privatized situation of stabilizing that force, because between the two
governments I've worked with I've seen proposals come from time to time where
we snatch life insurance and we go to another one. Two problems with that. I
think that needs to be very stabilized at some point, because I see us -- if
we're going to get into the constant RFP process where this is going to maybe
change from company to company, which the competitor, you know, may change
with the lowest bid. Are these companies -- and I guess [inaudible], and I
asked the same question of Ryder and I know what was done there. Are they
waiving any contestability period in that insurance so that they are
automatically brought in at whatever status they are in? Because see every
workforce, even though they may not be ours anymore, but they get older in
terms of length of service and you see -- I know under Georgia law, and it's
legal in terms of what they do, but you run into the two years and a day
provision. And I had to correct our old insurance holder in terms of not
negotiating for a family and they said, oh yeah, you know, you're right and I
said yeah, I know I'm right, because I made the argument where we got it.
But the question came up about the policy being new, and I want to make sure
that when these folk float from one company to another one and they pick up
the new status, that within your insurance provision if they would check to
make sure that within that grouping they are not caught in that contestability
stage with life insurance. Because age-wise, maybe pre-existing clauses,
something there of record that they may not have and, God forbid, but folk die
and they get into that predicament of where -- I don't want to see one get --
and any one would be one too many, and I'd say this if the bids were in
reverse. But I'm just asking the question because it seems as though if we're
going to get into the privatization business in some of these departments,
that that's a very important aspect or it may be one that we may want to
creatively look at dealing with a life insurance separately outside of the
confines of that package and of dealing with one that the general county
insurance would have and allow them to buy. I just don't want to see them
keep changing every two to three years or every time a bid is put out, just as
regular city and county employees used to have to do and not knowing what
company that they were going to be with. And we don't do that in our private
lives and I don't think it's a good idea that when we have control over
somebody else's to do that as well. And that's no disrespect to either
company or who will win the bid, but I think that's a process that needs to be
carefully answered in writing when you're dealing with that insurance aspect
of it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a representative from both companies, why
don't we ask them to come up. Gentlemen, do y'all want to come up?
MR. McINTOSH: I'm Greg McIntosh with Tecom. Insurance is one of those
areas where when they do change companies, we're given a set of requirements
and we, of course [inaudible] and they give us back what they'll need and what
they want. In the case of the life insurance, there's a $10,000 requirement.
We're giving the employees a $20,000 life insurance plan. In some instances
there is immediate --some states allow immediate coverage once they're hired
by us, and there are some that it's up to sixty days, and that is so you can
see what other conditions existed with that employee prior to him coming on.
And that's one of the reasons why we go through the -- we put in a ninety-day
probationary period, we go through the drug screening, the tests, background
and everything else to see if any conditions do apply, and it's a very
stringent program that's done.
MR. MAYS: Does yours not contain your normal standard contestable
period, though?
MR. McINTOSH: Yeah, we -- it's the normal.
MR. MAYS: When I say -- your two year and a day period. It's like folk
that come into my office and say, well, I'm insured, I got $100,000 worth of
insurance, we bought it yesterday. But if there are pre-existing conditions,
they don't -- you're right, you have insurance, but there are conditions prior
to, and you leave one going to another one, then you are legally within that
contestable period of which that company can reject. And I'm just asking that
whether it would be you or Ryder. That's what I don't want to get our folk
subject to, being into that kind of what I call a jerk-around position. And
that's no offense to you. I'm just looking at some way to stabilize that,
whether it may be outside the privatization realm, to deal with life insurance
or leaving a choice in there to try to deal with that. Because, you know,
you're twenty-five or thirty years old, you know, it's different. You know,
you get up there where I am, you get to the golden anniversary, you get older,
then that's something to be considered when you start that switching process
because it could be just your luck that you die within eleven months and
twenty-eight days. And some companies, they're gracious enough to say, well,
we don't want to lose the business, we'll pay the claim. Well, I've seen some
of them, quite frankly, turn from thoroughbreds to jackasses in the insurance
field and they won't pay them, and the Insurance Commissioner backs them up
with that. So legitimately they have that to stand on, and that's why I'm
raising that question. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Wall and I talked about, I
think, Mr. Mays, that the new portability law on the federal level, I believe,
addresses that. But if the Commission decides to go this way on a contract,
we can ensure that that's taken care of contractu-ally. I don't see that as
being a major stumbling block.
MR. MAYS: Well, that's one of the reasons I supported portability for
our own folk, but I didn't know whether we had an arm to reach beyond the
employees that we control and go into those in privatization and protect them
the same way with that same type of statute. If we can do that, then I think
that cures a lot of fear in there. Because if somebody is working but still
may have health problems, I guarantee you, if that insurance is high enough
they're going to fight one tough investigation. If they go to a new company
and something happens that day and there is a death, then it's not going to be
a normal process of where they've been under the coverage of somebody else for
ten years or past the contestability period. And I do think at that point you
open that period up to a level of vulnerability that they did not have before.
MR. OLIVER: Well, as I say, we can take care of that contractually. I
believe that with a new company coming in there's what's called an open
enrollment period, and during an open enrollment period, as the county just
had, there's a waiver of all pre-existing conditions to either join the plan
or to change from one option to another. But to answer your concern, we can
handle that contractually, and we'll make sure that's addressed if that's what
you decide to do.
MR. MAYS: I think it's one we need to really look at, for ours, private
folk, or anybody else. Because I think we buy that when we change. I realize
we can't control somebody if they go to work for somebody -- and this may pan
out where they're not employable after a certain point in time, they got the
right then to terminate that person. But I think in terms of the benefit
level, we need to protect that. And I fought for that provision -- so you
don't think I'm picking on y'all today, I raised sand with that one for seven
years on this side of the fence and another eight on the other side of the
fence until we finally got it in a decent position, I hope, that we got folk
that when they leave they don't have to work for a hundred years in order to
still maintain the level of life insurance and they can take it with them.
And I feel somewhat of the same responsibility whether it's sixteen folk or
sixteen hundred folk. If they come through this county family and we're
ushering that department into privatization, then we need to make sure that at
least they get no worse off than they were when they were here.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Certainly I concur with Mr. Mays, but I guess my concern
is being able to retain some of these folks. Mr. Mays, if they fire them
tomorrow they're not going to be there to get that insurance. That's what I
was concerned about. Sometimes when the new companies come in -- and I thought
I heard him say twelve months that will go with it, I might not have, but I
know you're not required to keep the persons all the time, certainly if they
don't perform. But I do think that somewhere down the line if these people
are in your shop they ought to be given some consideration provided they are
still doing the level of work, and I'd like to have some comment on that. And
you might have mentioned it, but I just want, for the record, for that to be
mentioned one more time.
MR. McINTOSH: Yes, we have. We've given it in writing also to the
county that we guaranteed to the current county employees and to the current
contract employees the first right of refusal for the jobs. We can't make
anybody go to work for us. We have a ninety-day probationary period where we
evaluate people and make sure they're in the right positions that we're hiring
them in. We find that the best employees are those that are there today
because they know the fleet, they know [inaudible]. In the contracting
business, if any of us take over the other one's contract, the first people we
want to hire are the people who are staying there. The only time that you
ever have a problem with anything like that is when you steal a city or a
county contract and there's other capabilities then used that are able to
progress through the county or city to another position, and a lot of times
you won't get those people. But in the private industry, those people are --
usually the workforce is going to stay with you, and our agreement with the
Fleet Division with the county is to offer the first right of refusal for the
jobs at their current rate of pay.
MR. SIDELL: And in regards to the Transit Department, which are actual
current government workers, they have guaranteed employment for a year under
the assumption that they meet performance standards and pass drug tests. So
for the county employees, they do have a longer term than what the incumbent
contract people have, but normally, historically, through contracts you see
that usually the number one guy is out and all the remaining people from that
level below continue on with whoever the contractor may be.
MR. SETZER: My name is Mike Setzer for Ryder MLS. Our offer to the
county includes the maintenance of the employment of all of the shop employees
and no modification to pay or benefits. Since their employment status will
continue uninterrupted there will be no ninety-day probation period, no
waiting period for eligibility for benefits, and no interrup-tion at all.
Several of our employees are here and may want to address that question also,
if that suits the Commission.
MR. TODD: My question, I guess for the sixteen, at what cost do Ryder
guarantee no interruption evaluation or guarantee keeping them on the payroll?
MR. SETZER: There are twenty-six employees today who came from either
the city or the county, and I'm not sure that I understand your question,
Commissioner. The cost of maintaining pay and benefits is built into our
offer to the city-county.
MR. OLIVER: Well, I think you made two bids, and one was to retain all
people and one was to give you the flexibility to hire whoever you thought
would be the best performers. And as I understand it, there's a difference in
those two bids, and the difference in those two bids would be the cost to
maintain current employment levels, I assume.
MR. SETZER: There is $104,000 difference between the base bid as
prescribed by the RFP and our alternate bid which protected all of the
existing employees, rates and benefits and employment. We intend to provide
that to all employees regardless of the ultimate outcome of this process.
MR. POWELL: I have one question, Randy, for you. Are we bidding apples
for apples here?
MR. OLIVER: In our opinion, yes, we are. And I would say this, all four
vendors are the major players in this industry. It's kind of like having
Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. I mean, you've got the major players in
this business and they're all very capable.
MR. POWELL: Now, Randy, the difference in the bids was exactly what?
MR. OLIVER: The difference between the lowest bidder and the second
lowest bidder, which was Tecom and Baker, was $187,834. The difference
between Ryder's alternate bid and the low bid was $379,187. And that's what
we think is apples and apples. When you start comparing the alternates, there
is a difference in the alternate.
MR. POWELL: Okay, that was my question. My next question is for the
gentleman from Tecom. Something Mr. Mays went into was the employees, and
we're talking about the same or better benefits; is that correct?
MR. McINTOSH: That's correct. They're essentially the equivalent
benefits. Some areas we're better than they are, some areas we -- it's like
some of the plans offered like ninety/ten or seventy/thirty and ours was
pretty much ninety/ten. We have a comparison sheet that we're going to be
distributing to all the employees so they'll see what they're going to get.
MR. POWELL: Okay. As far as pay, you know, with a $379,000 difference
something has got to be sacrificed somewhere or either Ryder needs to maybe do
some cost analysis work.
MR. McINTOSH: I don't know on that. When I look at the labor bids,
we're talking about $11,000 difference on the labor bids, when you look at the
Ryder bid versus Tecom labor bid.
MR. POWELL: And that's the total?
MR. McINTOSH: That's the total on the labor bid.
MR. POWELL: So in other words, what I'm heading towards, are you
planning on coming in and making salary adjustments to compensate you $379,000
difference?
MR. McINTOSH: No, that's not where the difference is in our bid. In our
opinion that's not.
MR. POWELL: And that's not your plan?
MR. McINTOSH: No, sir. Our plan -- as I stated, the county has
[inaudible] in the RFP. Those places were provided to us in the RFP. The
benefit package was provided to us in the RFP. That was a requirement in the
RFP and that's what --all four of us that bid the project met those. We're
not using the same company that Ryder uses for an insurance company. We use
Prudential, they're using CNA. We've used CNA in the past; in fact, we just
changed from CNA. So there's different reasons in our corporation why we
choose different insurance companies. So it's provider coverage and whatnot.
MR. POWELL: Okay. As far as vacation accruals, are you going to use the
same vacation accruals that -- MR. McINTOSH: We're recognizing the
vacation accruals from when they were hired in March of '95, and then April of
'96 I believe was the other one, and then the county employees, we have a
schedule for those. There's five or six county -- or Transit employees today
that we're recognizing [inaudible]. And this coming March is when the first
one starts on those people, I believe.
MR. POWELL: Okay. And the next part of the question is, employees have
been receiving some training sessions and certification training. Are you
planning to sacrifice any training or what is your plan on that?
MR. McINTOSH: That's part of our RFP, our proposal back to y'all. The
training program is part of that program on the incentive package for them to
get their training. We want them to get training. We're going to offer the
training to them. It's entirely up to the employee, though, if he's going to
take that training or take the incentive package. The incentive package is a
form of a wage increase when they get those.
MR. TODD: I guess my question is to Mr. Oliver. In the budget there is
a line item, I guess, or at least a contingency [inaudible], and it's roughly
a quarter of a million dollars either contract that was to be let.
MR. OLIVER: The contract provides for things to be done that were not
under the contract. Frankly, we cut that. That amount was somewhat greater
than that. But that would be for things that we may call upon the contractor
to do like go out and service an emergency generator, say, at one of the jails
or at the water treatment plant, or a pump at the water treatment plant, or
weld a gate, things of this nature. It would be the same under each bid, and
both bids provide for a markup based on things that are done outside of the
contract.
MR. TODD: And what did we spend last year outside of the contract?
MR. SIDELL: To date, Commissioner, we have spent $691,000 outside the
scope of the contract. That covers a lot of things that were done under the
original scope of the contract or at the agreement or the direction of the
Comptroller. That includes vandalism abuse, accidents; that had at one time
included [inaudible] repairs, Christmas tree lights, so forth and so on, that
we had removed from the scope of the contract.
MR. OLIVER: We've tightened that provision up. We felt it was too
loose.
MR. TODD: What did we budget in the contingency last year, the same
amount?
MR. SIDELL: No, sir. I do not believe that last year that you had a
budgeted contingency. I do not believe in 1997 that you have a budgeted
contingency.
MR. OLIVER: I would point out that, as I say, it would be the same --
our anticipated expenditure would be the same under either contract, so I
don't believe that that's a factor in the decision-making process. What we've
tried to do is to tighten that up because it was not as strictly defined as we
felt it should have been.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'd like to ask both Tecom and Ryder [inaudible]
experience do you have working with municipalities and how many local
municipalities in Georgia and Carolina of our size do y'all work with?
MR. SETZER: Ryder has -- through it's company, Ryder ATU, which Ryder
MLS is a part of that, we manage ninety-plus transit systems in the United
States. I think the second part of your question was how many of those --
MAYOR SCONYERS: How many municipalities of our size do y'all [inaudible]?
MR. SETZER: We currently have from fifteen municipalities where we
provide fleet maintenance where the annual budget is in excess of a million
dollars, if we use that as a standard.
MR. McINTOSH: We're not in the actual physical transit as such that we
have a separate division that we call transit. The transit that we deal with
primarily is in government [inaudible]. Basically the drive trains, chassis,
and whatnot are basically the same when you're dealing with engines and stuff.
What you're dealing with there is mechanics, and what we were discussing
there was -- or what we did was hiring the local transit people [inaudible].
As far as contracts in the State of Georgia, we don't have another contract in
the State of Georgia municipality. We have the Air Force Base in Atlanta we
have a contract with. As far as the size of over a million dollars, I believe
we have six or maybe seven that are over a million dollars [inaudible].
MR. SIDELL: Our original intent is to provide additional support for the
Transit Department. Currently the Transit Department only has three active
mechanics today. The minimum based on the extended shift, six days a week,
they need six to eight people. So our original intent, again, was to provide
additional support for the Transit Department. We have now stated that we are
not considering looking at outsourcing of the entire Transit operation, so our
experience requirement is not concerned with Transit operational experience
but with mechanical experience [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: When you arrived at these decisions, y'all don't have to
send somebody out to look at anything outside or do we do this by paper or
[inaudible]?
MR. SIDELL: Yes, sir. In the proposal, each contractor is required to
list a listing of the types of projects he has and the point of contacts with
those projects, and I personally placed calls to a minimum of two agencies,
and each contractor or each proposer of a fleet of equal size of ours. So we
have talked to people that are doing a contract with all of the different
proposers with comparable sized fleets.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, let's just have a roll call vote, please.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Abstain.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy is out. Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Present.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Present.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3.
CLERK: Item 33: Motion to authorize establishment of a County Fleet
Manager position (pay grade to be determined).
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the committee took no action on it. The
committee deadlocked on this [inaudible], and it would be my recommendation
that we form this position and authorize the Administrator to do what's
necessary to establish it.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. OLIVER: I would note that as part of the discussion process before
the Finance Department -- or in the Finance Committee, that both of the
contractors recognize the need for a fleet manager and felt that a fleet
manager would be able to better manager our fleet. And, in my opinion, I
think that --and Mr. Sidell has been part of Ryder's contract, or will be
through the end of this year, that I think we have the best grasp on our fleet
that we've ever had.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that this is a new position and most
likely we would be going out for notice for applicants. But my question to, I
guess, the Administrator or the County Attorney, are we required by law when
we have a quasi-department head that would be working for another entity
somewhat that we were involved in the negotiation to bring them on board, to
go out -- a notice for applicants?
MR. WALL: Y'all have adopted a policy on department heads that you will
advertise for those positions. Now, that is a policy that y'all have done
insofar as department head positions. And I think that, consistent with what
you're doing, that it should be advertised.
MR. OLIVER: We're not proposing this position, by the way, be a
department head. We're proposing to leave it where it is right now.
MR. WALL: Okay. Well, then it should be advertised.
MR. TODD: I was just concerned. Sometimes it seems that, you know,
we're maybe spending unnecessary money, and especially in a situation like
this. But if it's the requirement, then I would want to stay with the
requirements.
MR. ZETTERBERG: A question for Mr. Sidell. You've done a pretty
thorough inventory of all the county's vehicles and pieces of equipment that
we're supposed to have as part of your duties as the fleet manager?
MR. SIDELL: Yes, sir.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Would you care to tell this group how many vehicles that
we can account for?
MR. SIDELL: Currently we have fifty-three vehicles that we have not
found. Since the time that I arrived in April I have gone through all the
equipment lists, both the city's list, both the county's list, both the
current contractor's list. I removed approximately four hundred pieces of
equip-ment from the list that had been sold, salvaged, or whatever the case.
Also at that same time we tried to locate equipment and I could not find any
records of where this equipment was, whether it was sold or whether it was
transferred to other departments, and those are still outstanding today. I
still haven't located those particular pieces of equipment. Unfortunately,
some of the city and county records leave something to be desired as far as
trackability, so I'm not saying that the equipment isn't here, but I've not
seen it. I'm not saying that the equipment hasn't been sold at an auction, but
I have no paperwork about it.
MR. OLIVER: One of the things I would note that a good fleet manager
does is make it so you don't have vehicle creep. It's pretty easy to get a new
vehicle and then somebody says, well, I'll keep the old vehicle for a couple
of weeks and all of a sudden it winds up still in the fleet after a year or
two and somebody then wants to replace it again. And a good fleet manager
makes sure that your vehicle count is only increased by a willing decision
rather than a passive one.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I asked Mr. Sidell that question to just reinforce a
point. There's no question in my mind that this government does need a
manager [inaudible] accountability over that fleet and watching all the things
that happen. I'm sure that if we end up with a fleet manager we're not going
to have continued problems that we have or have had in the past.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my question is for Mr. Oliver. What salary
range are we looking at adding to the -- for this position?
MR. OLIVER: We're still verifying the salary range. I'm not prepared to
address that. I would expect that the salary range for the fleet manager
would be somewhere in the forties to peak out somewhere in the low to mid
fifties.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I just want to point out that presently we have
a fleet manager who works or gets paid for Ryder, which, of course, is
included in the fee that we pay
Ryder or any other company. And we're not really adding dollars to the
payroll here. We may be adding a position, but we're not necessarily adding
dollars here.
MR. OLIVER: That's correct, and we budgeted both of the items in the
budget. And with the bids, all of them were done equally. None of the bids
include a fleet manager. We believe it's a conflict of interest in the long
term for the fleet manager to work for the contractor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a request of Mr. Oliver and Mr.
Sidell, that they supply me with the fifty-three or fifty-four vehicles that
we're missing, or equipment, the type, year, et cetera.
MR. SIDELL: That's no problem. I have a spreadsheet and I can get that
to you.
MR. KUHLKE: What is the value of those fifty-three?
MR. SIDELL: We're looking at fifty-three cars and pickup trucks. If you
equate it today, based on the age of the equipment, I would say you're
probably looking at somewhere in the vicinity of about $100,000. Again, I'm
not saying that the equipment is not here.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that if the equipment is here, we
could simply do like the military do and have a stand-down. Whether it's
personnel or equipment, if you tell all of your personnel to bring all their
equipment or vehicles or pickup trucks in a stand-down, wherever you want to
have that, you should be able to do that and account for it. If it was
assigned to them and they can't account for it, then I think we need to hold
them accountable for it. And, you know, if we're talking $100,000 and we
think that -- if that's a small percentage of the overall fleet and we think
over the years that we've lost that in surplus, et cetera, and selling off, we
have a record of all that here. We don't surplus property legally without it
going through this board, and it should have been the same policy on the city.
And I'd like a separation -- in the sense that I'm responsible for the county
side in the past and both now, I'd like a separation of the two, which was
city and which was county.
MR. OLIVER: We can give it to you both by department and by city-county
-- the former city and county.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS ABSENT]
CLERK: Items 34 through 44, with the exception of 37, were approved by
Administrative Services on December 8th.
[Item 34: Motion to approve Subordination Agreement for Frankie Carl
Morgan and Bertha M. Jones to be subordinated to loan by TMS Mortgage, Inc.
d/b/a The Money Store. The Subordination Agreement is in regards to
property located at 2606 Hazel Street. Item 35: Motion to approve
renewal of Rental Agreement with Community Service Board d/b/a Community
Mental Health Center of East Central Georgia. Item 36: Motion to
approve First Amendment to Co-Location Option and Lease Agreement between
Augusta and BellSouth Personal Communications, Inc. so as to extend option
period for space at Wheeler Road water tank for additional 36 days for
option price of $2,000.00. Item 37: Deleted from agenda. Item
38: Motion to approve the 1998 Community Development Block Grant Final
Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds final budget. Item
39: Motion to approve 1998 Emergency Shelter Projected Use of Funds Budget
final budget. Item 40: Motion to approve 1998 HOME Projected Use of
Funds Budget final budget. Item 41: Motion to approve Resolution
authorizing the filing of the 1998 Consolidated Strategy and Plan which
includes the CDBG, ESG, and HOME budgets. Item 42: Motion to approve
1998 Consolidated Strategy and Plan. Item 43: Motion to approve the
petition for retirement on Winona M. Hendrix. Item 44: Motion to
ratify the appointment of Allison May to the position of Director of Main
Street Augusta, effective December 1, 1997, at a salary of $29,313.]
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 34 through 44 be approved as
a consent agenda, with the exception of 37. It was pulled.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I would like to pull Item 38.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 38: Motion to approve the 1998 Community Development
Block Grant Final Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds final
budget.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to clarify in that list -- I did not see
the final list. Is Historic Augusta included in that? I don't -- it's been
brought to my attention that that was removed.
MR. BEARD: I don't know that it was ever -- it wasn't on there, so it
wasn't removed. I'll let Mr. Mack address this.
MR. MACK: Mr. Beard is correct, it wasn't removed, it wasn't on there.
The citizens advisory panel that the Board of Commissioners appointed made
their recommendations, and that is the list that you have in your book.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Is there anybody here from Historic Augusta that can --
there was some confusion. They thought it was going to be on there and it was
not. I have no further questions then.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is to the chairman of the
committee. This have no impact on whether we consider a superblock?
MR. BEARD: We have decided to bring that up, the superblock, at a later
date, Mr. Todd. There have been some clarifications that need to be
considered in that, and we have asked the people in Atlanta, HUD, to render a
decision on some of the things that was said in the committee meeting. We
felt it would be better if we waited on this and make sure we've corrected
everything on it.
MR. TODD: But my question is still if we finalize the plan today, that
don't affect which agencies we [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: No, it does not, Mr. Todd. That would be a separate issue.
MR. BEARD: I so move, Mr. Mayor, that we approve Item Number 38.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: The Planning Commission recommends as a consent agenda all items
with the exception of Items 6, 7, and 9.
[Item 1: Z-97-121 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Augusta Deliverance
Evangelistic Church requesting a special exception to expand an existing
church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property
located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Tubman Home Road and
Kennedy Drive (2101 Kennedy Drive). Item 2: Z-97-122 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from Samuel Howe, on behalf of Thomas T. Johnson, requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church and cemetery as
provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) and
(m) respectively of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Ga. Hwy.
88, 2,950 feet, more or less, southwest of the southwest corner of the
intersection of Boulineau Road and Ga. Hwy. 88. Item 3: Z-97-123 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve with a condition, 'That the tower be attached to a non-residential
structure no more than 100 feet in height', a petition from Brian Dickert,
on behalf of First Assembly of God, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a telecom-munications tower as provided for in
Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of
Moore Avenue and Fenwick Street (1613 Fenwick Street). Item 4: Z-97-
124 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission
to approve a petition from Irma and James Westmoreland requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as
provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Compre-hensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest
right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway (Ga. Hwy. 56), 380 feet, more or
less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way of the Central
of Georgia Railroad line intersects the southwest right-of-way of Mike
Padgett Highway (5245 Mike Padgett Highway). Item 5: Z-97-125 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Jay Willingham, on behalf of Bobby G. Jumper and
Della J. Nappier, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture)
to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the south right-of-
way line of Wrightsboro Road, 333 feet, more or less, east of a point where
the southeast right-of-way line of Belair Road intersects with the south
right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road (3522 Wrightsboro Road). Item 6:
Deleted from consent agenda. Item 7: Deleted from consent agenda.
Item 8: Z-97-129 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That the only business on
this property shall be a day care center; and that at such time as this use
shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone R-1A (One-
family Residence),' a petition from William O. Key, Jr., on behalf of J.
Howard Fambrough, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the
south right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 280 feet, more or less, east
of the southeast corner of the intersection of Old McDuffie Road and
Milledgeville Road (3374 Milledgeville Road). Item 9: Deleted from
consent agenda. Item 10: Z-97-131 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Clifford
Jones requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2
(General Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Tobacco Road and Peach Orchard Road (U.S. Hwy. 25).
Item 11: Z-97-132 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from James H. and Sandra L.
Brasher requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to
Zone A (Agriculture) on property located on the west right-of-way line of
Peach Orchard Road, 1,035 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner
of the intersection of Plantation Road and Peach Orchard Road. Item
12: Bertram Village - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Public Works
Department requesting a name change for a portion of Buckhaven Lane to
December 9, 1997, Destin Lane. (The reason for the request is to
differentiate the public portion of Buckhaven Lane from the private
portion.) Item 13: Westside Commons - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission requesting a name change of Alex Drive
to Alex Lane to correct a typograph-ical error. (The Townhomes of
Alexander, Phase I delineated the road name as Alex Lane.) Item 14:
The Townhomes of Alexander, Phase II - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission requesting a name change of Alex Drive
to Alex Lane to correct a typographical error. (The Townhomes of Alexander,
Phase I delineated the road name as Alex Lane.) Item 15: SA-22 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations for Augusta to require
ties to County and/or Goededic Control Monuments. Item 16:
Castlebrook Village - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Lee Bruker, on behalf of
Southern Land Company, requesting to change the name of Castlebrook Village
Subdivision to Helenia Woods.]
MR. PATTY: Two of these were errors on the plat, and none of the lots
were sold, so the only interest in it was ours and the developers. The other
one was a road that -- a public road which became a private road. Both of
them had the same name and Public Works requested the change so there would be
a distinction between the two.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 6: Z-97-127 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve with the conditions, '1) That the
water service be connected to a twelve (12) inch main on Richmond Hill
Road; and 2) That the use of this property be limited to a Rehabilitation
Hospital Independent Living Center or those uses allowed in R-1A Zone,' a
petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc., on behalf of J.F. Clements,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to
Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) on property located on the west
right-of-way line of Howell Road, 225.0 feet north of the northwest corner
of the intersection of Harding Road and Howell Road.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. REEVES: I'm Jeff Reeves with Sherman & Hemstreet. On Howell Road,
Walton Rehab has received a grant to build eleven units there for
accessibility to the handicapped. At the meeting last week we resolved
everything about the county water, about tapping onto the main over on
Richmond Hill [inaudible]. They've got a forty-year commitment at Walton
Rehab, so you'll see a pretty nice project back in there. They've got three
other projects in Augusta and they do a good job.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 7: Z-97-128 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Burt Rayburn, on behalf
of Carolyn Reynolds, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-
family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located
on the southeast right-of-way line of Battle Row, 50.0 feet east of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Fenwick Street and Battle Row (2020
Battle Row).
MR. RAYBURN: I had called Mr. Patty to further explain the position of
the people that were requesting the change of zoning. It's going to be for a
six-person or less day care, child care. It's a one-bedroom dilapidated
property, and the owners and prospective purchasers are please asking that
that be done. After speaking with Mr. Patty and further explaining the
position, he decided that they could change their recommendation. MR.
PATTY: Mr. Rayburn has got a piece of property on Battle Row that was a non-
conforming commercial use for some time [inaudible] because it was vacant for
over two years. And it's surrounded by residential properties, there's no
other commercial around it. At the Planning Commission meeting the request
was for commercial zoning to do a full-blown day care center, which I don't
think is compatible with the area. We didn't have any objectors. And in
talking to his clients, they decided that they could live with a day care
center with less than six children if we could approve by special exception.
And I think he told me that he's got a seventy-seven year old widow that's the
owner of this property, and with no objectors, the possibility of him bringing
her down here and pleading her case, I think that I would just as soon see you
approve it as a special exception for less than six. That would not be a
zoning change, so it wouldn't affect the zoning now.
MR. TODD: I so move that we approve -- I mean, I so move that we
approve it [inaudible] special exception, six or less.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 9: Z-97-130 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from James W. Scott, on
behalf of Wyman B. Simmons, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the
northwest corner of the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway (Ga. Route 56)
and Rollins Road.
MR. OELLERICH: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Dee
Oellerich and I'm here on behalf of Mr. Simmons asking that y'all zone this
property so that he may use it as B-2. The Planning Commission asked that it
be denied, but Mr. Patty's office, I understand, was not opposed to this. And
I've got a plat that I can pass out to give you a picture and show you what
the situation is from there.
MR. TODD: What's the planned use for this?
MR. OELLERICH: The planned use, Mr. Todd, is a car wash and a
laundromat. And in-between Bobby Jones Expressway and Waynesboro, 25 to the
river, there's not a single establish-ment of that type in there anywhere.
MR. TODD: What was the staff recommendation?
MR. PATTY: The staff recommendation was for approval, the written staff
recommendation. We had some objectors show up at the meeting that, frankly,
we hadn't anticipated. The property is long and narrow, if you look at the
plat. It's got about a hundred and five feet of frontage on Old Savannah Road
and it goes back about six hundred feet. It's a little bit of an unusual
situation. The staff recommendation I gave at the meeting after hearing the
objectors was to not zone the rear hundred feet of the property in a line
parallel to Highway 56 towards Butler from their area. Hearing that, the
Planning Commission did recommend that it be denied.
MR. OELLERICH: This property is almost directly across from the Hanbrook
project putting in the new mill or whatever you want to call it out there.
And when you get the construction workers, I mean, they've got to wash their
clothes somewhere. They'll either go to Waynesboro, twenty miles one way, and
Hephzibah the other way ten miles, or go to Bobby Jones Expressway.
MR. TODD: What does the comprehensive plan call for?
MR. PATTY: Well, the comprehensive plan recognizes, I think, the
futility of trying to stop commercial development on like heavy arteries like
Highway 56 or 25. It encourages development on them and discourages
development [inaudible].
MR. TODD: And the proposed stipulation that was given to Planning and
Zoning was the back hundred yards or whatever not be rezoned [inaudible]?
MR. OELLERICH: We could plant trees and that type of thing there. We've
got a combination of homes and mobile homes [inaudible].
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I knew at one time he said he was going to put a liquor
store on it.
MR. OELLERICH: No, sir. This property is going to be bought by Mack
Harrington that runs Mack's Country Store. He's got three of them in the
Hephzibah/Blythe area. One is next to my mother. There's never been a
problem in Hephzibah with that, never been a problem out on Windsor Spring
Road. And I'm the Municipal Court Judge [inaudible]. There's not a liquor
store there, but we've never had a single case up there. He runs a tight
ship. It's just an area that's changing with the plants that's coming in,
that's why he wants to put it here, and those folks don't like to see plants
sometimes or a store right there. But this is one of about six roads running
towards 25 between Tobacco Road and the county line. I mean, it's one of the
few corners that exists in the area.
MR. TODD: And it's my understanding that it's going to be a laundromat
and a car wash?
MR. OELLERICH: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, we can't put that stipulation [inaudible], can we?
MR. WALL: Well, I mean, you can put a stipulation that at such time it
ceases to be used for a specific purpose, that the zoning would revert back to
its present classification.
MR. TODD: I'm going to so move that those stipulations be included,
that it reverts back at the point that it ceases to be used for the purpose
that he wants the rezoning, and specifically a car wash and a laundromat.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second.
SPEAKER: I have a question [inaudible] because there is a church that's
just been rezoned because they're having to move on account of [inaudible].
We just got one down the road from [inaudible] change that from a car wash
because it's a business, B-2, and there'll be another one right over there
beside of it and I don't think that the church should have the beer right
next door to it. So I would like a stipulation if you change from a car wash,
that it reverts back to the zone to what it originally is.
MR. TODD: Yes, ma'am, that's what we put in the motion.
MR. BRIDGES: George, where is that -- we recently approved a church to
go over here. Where is it located in relation to that business?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think it's on that Board of Education property over
there.
MR. PATTY: That's correct, it is on the Board of Education property.
MR. BRIDGES: But where is that on this map in relation to Rollins Road?
MR. PATTY: It's very close to it.
SPEAKER: It's right next door. The property adjoins each other.
MR. BRIDGES: Are there any objectors to this? As I understand it,
you're in agreement with the motion as far as if the stipulation is there?
SPEAKER: Yes. I'd like to see this have to revert back, the zoning if
they're ever going to put something besides a car wash there, because I don't
feel that -- we've already got a beer place that's just right down the road
and we do not need another one right next to the church.
MR. BRIDGES: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Items 45 through 76 were approved by the Engineering Services
Committee on December the 8th.
[Item 45: Motion to approve land exchange with Home Sites, Ltd. under
which Augusta, Georgia will swap 0.10 acres for 0.11 acres owned by Homes
Sites, Ltd. for use as an existing retention pond located on property near
Clarkston Drive and property owned by Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay
Company. Item 46: Motion to approve counteroffer option in the amount
of $500.00 to purchase 0.013 acres in fee owned by Solomon G. Varnado (Tax
Map 57-4, Parcel 164-Project 4) on the upper Crane Creek Channel
Improvement Project. Item 46a: Motion to approve condemnation of
permanent drainage and utility easement (Tax Map 16, Parcel 50) on the
Upper Crane Creek Channel Improvement Project, which is owned by Mary F.
Mills. Item 47: Motion to approve Change Order Number 2 for Rae's
Creek Channel Improvements, Project Number 55-8384-324 with Mabus
Construction Company, Incorporated, in the amount of $26,384.46. Item
48: Motion to approve Change Order Number 4 for East Augusta Drainage
Improvements, Project Number 55-8177-094 with Beam's Pavement Maintenance
in the amount of $24,107.50 for the addition of sidewalk, curb and gutter,
and associated incidentals on East Cedar Street. Item 49: Motion to
approve Change Order Number 1 for Council Drive and Donald Road
Improvements, Project Number 55-8307-095 with APAC-Georgia, Incorporated,
in the amount of $4,742 for the modification of drainage structures and the
addition of asphalt flumes and driveways on the project. Item 50:
Motion to approve proposal from ZEL Engineers, Inc. to provide engineering
services related to Main Lift Station Rehabilitation at a cost of $239,000.
Item 51: Motion to approve proposal from Jordon, Jones and Goulding,
Inc. to perform odor study at the Messerly WWTP at a cost of $72,500.
Item 52: Motion to approve proposal from James G. Swift and Associates to
perform engineering study related to the extension of sanitary sewer
service in the Little Spirit Creek Basis at a cost of $16,500. Item
53: Motion to approve the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and
road resolution(s) for Walton's Landing Subdivision, Phase III. Item
54: Motion to approve condemnation of permanent drainage and utility
easement and access easement over existing sanitary sewer (Tax Map 16,
Parcel 373) on the Upper Crane Creek Channel Improvement Project, which is
owned by Earthie G. Folk and Sandra D. Folk. Item 55: Motion to
approve condemnation of permanent drainage and utility easement and access
easement (Tax Map 16, Parcel 34) on the Upper Crane Creek Channel
Improvement Project, which is owned by Melanie A. Ellis. Item 56:
Motion to approve condemnation of permanent drainage easement, permanent
easement over existing sanitary
easement and temporary construction easement on the Upper Crane Creek
Channel Improvement Project (Project Parcel 2), which are owned by James M.
Johnson. Item 57: Motion to approve the deed of dedication,
maintenance agreement and road resolution for Spencer Place Subdivision.
Item 58: Motion to approve condemnation of permanent drainage easement
and permanent easement over existing sewer on the Upper Crane Creek Channel
Improvement Project (Project Parcel 3), which are owned by Crane Creek
Development Co. Item 59: Motion to approve condemnation of permanent
drainage and utility easement and access easement (Project Parcel 1) and
permanent easement over existing sewer easement (Project Parcel 4) on the
Upper Crane Creek Channel Improvement Project, which are owned by Sellers-
Johnson. Item 60: Motion to approve counteroffer option in the amount
of $400.00 to purchase 0.016 acres of permanent drainage easement and 354.4
sq. ft. of temporary construction easement owned by Lawrence S. Williams
and Lola Williams (Tax Map 57-4, Parcel 213, Project Parcel 16). Item
61: Motion to approve counteroffer option in the amount of $1,265.00 to
acquire an easement consisting of 1,442 sq. ft. of permanent utility
easement and 750 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from Neal W.
and Mary L. Baker (Tax Map 86.1, Parcel 004). Item 62: Motion to
approve counteroffer option in the amount of $2,000 to acquire an easement
consisting of 763 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 750 sq. ft. of
temporary construction easement from Lila Griffin (Tax Map 71.3, Parcel
144). Item 63: Motion to approve Local Government Project Agreement
with the Georgia Department of Transportation and Capital Project Budget
Number 57-8907-097 with funding in the amount of $7,700 for the Bobby Jones
Expressway Project from Laney-Walker Boulevard to the Savannah River.
Item 64: Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedication for the
sanitary sewer main with applicable easement across the property of
Sterling Ridge Apartments. Item 65: Motion to approve Deed of
Correction to Deed of Dedication of Fairington Subdivision Section VI-B.
Item 66: Motion to approve Resolution to abandon a portion of Carolina
Road. Item 67: Motion to approve easement DACA21-2-97-1467 from the
Secretary of the Army to Augusta, Georgia. item 68: Motion to approve
modification of the existing traffic signal at the intersection of
Washington Road and Stevens Creek Road to accommodate a new frontage road
to be constructed by others using in-house forces and existing equipment.
Item 69: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 70: Motion to approve
Agreement with Columbia County for sale of water and sewerage treatment
services at $.90 per 1,000 gallons (plus applicable increases).
Item 71: Motion to approve Change Order Number One for
Perimeter Parkway Improvement with Blair Construction, Inc. inthe amount of
$123,289.44, which will come from Project Contingencies. Item 72:
Motion to approve proposal from Augusta Design Group to provide design
services for the (1) MG Highpointe Elevated Storage Tank at a cost not to
exceed $40,266.00. Item 73: Motion to approve proposal from Toole
Engineering to provide engineering design services for the Doug Bernard
Parkway, Dan Bowles Road Water System Improvements at a cost of $56,530.
Item 74: Motion to approve the addition of Washington/ Berckman Road
Elevated Water Tank cleaning and painting in the amount of $229,117.00 to
Utility Service's existing tank painting contract. Item 75: Motion to
approve Change Order Number 2 in the amount of $17,555.90 for Zimmerman,
Evans and Leopold, Inc. regarding additional engineering services required
for the Spirit Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. Item 76:
Motion to accept license agreement and indemnity agreement in connection
with property in the vicinity of the intersection of Interstate 20 and
Bobby Jones Expressway.]
MR. OLIVER: We would note with a caveat on 70, we've talked with
Columbia County. That has to do with the Rae's Creek Project. They have
agreed to additional language in that contract, with the condition all
subsequent taps require consent of the Georgia Department of Environmental
Regulation.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take the
Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda, except for Item
Number 69.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 69: Motion to approve bird survey at Constructed
Wetland site to be performed by Dr. Sidney A. Gauthreaux at an approximate
cost of $30,000 and other scien-tists and to authorize an ecological study
at an approximate cost of $50,000 pursuant to a cost sharing agreement
between Bush Field and the Utilities Department to be negotiated between
the Administrator and the Airport Director.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve Item 69.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to be clear about this item. I think it's
important, whether we was doing the wetlands or not, that we do remediation of
Phinizy Swamp and the farmland in the sense that the former government and
this government received funds from leasing those properties, and we've had
[inaudible]. And I think that if [inaudible] an environmental issue as far as
airports go. We know that for one reason or another, whether we have an
artificial wetland or not, we have increased [inaudible] my position that we
mitigate this and that we do the [inaudible] as far as the work that we need
to do and to assure that we don't have [inaudible], and that's the study and
mitigation.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I know the motion will probably pass because
I'm sure the votes are there to do it, but I just want to make it short and
sweet to voice my opinion of this. I think that we're wasting $80,000 of
taxpayers' money for a bird study.
MR. WALL: Let me address that, if I may, Mr. Todd, disagree with you to
the extent that there is an increase -- any evidence of any increased bird
strikes, and particularly that there is any evidence of any increased bird
strikes as a result of any water fowl. If you look back on a historical
basis, there really is no evidence of any increase in the number of bird
strikes. In 1990, '91, '92, at times there were -- at one particular year
they were up to fourteen reported bird strikes out at Bush Field. And this
year there have been either seven or eight to date, I've forgotten the exact
number, and there is no evidence that any of those birds were water fowl.
The point that I would make and the reason that I'm recommending this study
is twofold. Primarily I think that there could be a mandate that we perform
the ecological study, and I think that we need to be ahead of the game and
ahead of the curve insofar as the other study so that we have a baseline so
that we will be in a position to defend any claim that there has been any
increased activity, and so I'm recommending both studies be performed.
Insofar as the $50,000 study, since it's going to cover more than just the
constructed wetlands the price of that ought to be shared between this
Commission and the Aviation Commission, and the exact breakdown should be
subject to an agreement reached between Mr. Oliver and Mr. McDill and, if
necessary, approved by each body.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may make a clarification. I think I said
nationally there's been an increase in strikes. I didn't necessarily say
that there'd been an increase in strikes at Bush Field [inaudible].
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Wall, you say we'll be ahead of the power curve on
this one. What happens if we're behind the power curve?
MR. WALL: Conceivably if we do not do the ecological study we could be
in a situation where we could be mandated to do the study or the certification
for certain air traffic coming into Bush Field could be lifted.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Would it be lifted without having our study done?
MR. WALL: I don't think that the FAA would lift that certification
without giving us a mandate in the first instance to do it, but I think the
indication was we need to do that in order to satisfy their concerns. And I
think that, reading between the lines, we need to do the study.
MR. OLIVER: I would note without the study we don't have the baseline,
and so if there is a subsequent change in the bird population it's going to be
assumed that it relates to this wetlands project, and that assumption, you
know, could be totally erroneous.
MR. POWELL: I agree with you a hundred percent, Mr. Oliver, that the
whole perception of this thing -- there's been no increase in the strikes of
the aircraft with the birds, there's no evidence that it was water fowl
involved. I say you're throwing away $80,000, and I have to differ with the
attorney with the degree.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. POWELL & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
CLERK: Item 77: Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount
of $61,802.55 for Hardy Plumbing Company, Inc. regarding the construction
of Vineland Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that I have assurance from the Mayor's
Office and the Administrator and the County Attorney that we're not going to
let folks go out in the future and negotiate on a right-of-way ten times the
money that the right-of-way is worth. And I've gone down the road in that
area, I've looked at the work that's basically been done, not underground but
trees that's been cut, et cetera. I believe, if I remember correctly the
number, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $16,000 for removing the trees.
That was including, I think, $4,000 [inaudible], and most of this was
supposedly allegedly negotiated by our folks for right-of-way, which is
ludicrous. And I think that before any such projects is negotiated, then sent
back to us as a change order, that we need to be in on it when it's negotiated
and approve the right-of-way acquisition as far as negotiations go and not
have it come back and bite us on the tail end where someone coming back and
saying, well, because this was in the property negotiation we need to do this
or we got to do this. I think the average citizens looking at what we're
paying for, it wouldn't pass the smell test, and I would hope that our folks
get the message loud and clear that they don't go out and do these type of
negotiations. If they do, they're going to be looking for work. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD & MR. TODD VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1.
CLERK: Item 78: Motion to approve payment for $4,891.30 to Beam's
Pavement Maintenance Company for completed work on Goodale Landing water
and sanitary sewer extension.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm going to do another protest vote
because I'm still receiving letters from the citizens over there in reference
to what's going on on this end. And I don't think -- like the Cafe DuTeau, I
don't think we resolved this issue, and it's our responsibility to resolve
this one. So probably you have the votes, but I'm going to vote in the
negative.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's take 79 and 81 and pull 80.
[Item 79: Motion to approve Georgia Emergency Management Agency
Performance Partnership Agreement. Item 80: Deleted from consent
agenda. Item 81: Motion to authorize Change Order to R.W. Allen in
the amount of $19,249 to relocate the security system from the mechanical
room to a location that would prevent damage to the equipment at the Joint
Law Enforcement Center.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move for approval.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 80: Motion to approve best bid award to
Command/Banner Uniforms for Fire Department personnel uniforms not to
exceed $150,000. Approved by the Public Safety Committee on December the
8th.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand we have a protest in on this bid and
I'd like to hear that protest.
MR. FISHMAN: I'm Steven Fishman with Sidney's Department Store in
Augusta, Georgia. We came in on this bid approximately $22,179.84 low. The
bid was pushed through the Public Safety Committee. We had no idea at that
time that we were not being considered favored for this particular bid. We
provided all samples as necessary. I believe that our materials met or
exceeded spec on this bid, and I still don't have a good answer as to why we
were not selected, at least in my opinion. I have copies of the bids and
specs on some of the items [inaudible] and we feel that we're $72.96 low per
man. On a three hundred and four man department, tabulated out it comes to
$22,179 low bid. Any questions?
MR. POWELL: I'll refer my question over to anyone in the Public Safety
Committee and maybe they can give us a clarifi-cation on that, why we would
want to pay more for the uniforms.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Powell, the reason we approved this and sent it to the
Commission is because it was the recommendation by the Fire Chief, and the
comments given to us is that the second bid was the best bid from the
standpoint of it furnishing what was requested in the proposal. I've spoken
with Mr. Fishman and I've spoken with Mr. Few just this past Saturday to make
sure that his recommendation, that he's comfortable with it, that it is the
best bid as far as what they're providing to the county. So that's the reason
that we recommended this back to the Commission. Of course, it gets it to
this body, and I think it's up to Mr. Few at this point to justify his
recommendation.
CHIEF FEW: Thank you very much, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Mayor, I want to say
that we went through what we call a three-step bidding process along with the
Purchasing Department. In our department we put together what we call a
uniforms committee so that we could get input on our uniforms from the lowest
person in the department to the person in upper management. During the bid
process we had a pre-bid conference, and at that time we stated that we would
take no exceptions to the bid. On the day that we asked for those items so
that our uniforms committee could look at the items to see if those were the
items that we actually had specifications on, Mr. Fishman at the time did not
have his items there and that's why he was turned down -- in the first sense
why he was turned down. Secondly, the uniforms committee actually made a
recommendation also to the Purchasing Department and said that the uniforms of
Command/Banner were the best uniforms that we could buy because they were a
little bit more color coordinated also. Now, that doesn't seem like very
much, but when you put a person in the sunlight and he has three color blues
on, then that doesn't show that we did a very good job of probably looking at
our uniforms if we didn't do that. In addition to that, we talked about the
tee shirt that he had, and we asked for heavy tee shirts because we do wash
and wear them and we go out on fires at night and we have to wash them very
frequently. That did not meet the specifications. Also, on the sweats, we
asked for eleven ounce goods and you gave us nine ounce goods.
MR. FISHMAN: Eleven and a half ounce, sir.
CHIEF FEW: Eleven and a half ounce goods, excuse me. You brought nine
back. And then a couple of days later you showed up at Ms. Sams' office and
brought back some other additional goods. To all fairness with all the
vendors that went there, we stuck very close to the specifications. That's
why we wrote them that way. We thought we had two good companies and I don't
want to, you know, sit here and try to embarrass either company. I do have
the sweats back there in the back, but I didn't think it was a very good thing
to bring them out here and then maybe cause some embarrassment. We turned
down a number of vendors because they did not meet the specs. At the bid
specification, I said if you don't have a belt on that list we will turn you
down. Everybody agreed that these were the best specs that we ever had,
including Mr. Fishman. We turned down a number of vendors because they said
they couldn't come up with the items. And Ms. Sams and I, you know, we looked
at them and said, well, we have to turn them down because they don't meet
spec. I've got it several different ways, but I stuck exactly to the
specifica-tions. Everything that I said in that pre-bid conference, I
mentioned those things, have all your items when you come in at the next
process, that if you don't we're going to turn it down. And he did not have
them there, so we couldn't get a recom-mendation from our uniforms committee
because you didn't have your items there. Mr. Fishman has a good business, I
don't have anything wrong. In our bid process, it gave us two good vendors:
Command and Sidney's. But the thing about it, to stay consistent with what
we've written we had to turn him down. In addition to that, you did not meet
the specifica-tions for our uniforms committee. They turned you down.
MR. FISHMAN: Which specs are you asking me, sir?
CHIEF FEW: The specifications of all the items.
MR. FISHMAN: Okay. Item one, two, three, four, five, six are exactly
the same. The survival belt I gave was actually above spec. The question is
the tee shirts, the sweat pants, the sweat shirts, sweat shorts, and the
baseball cap. I have not heard anything on the sweat pants -- sweat shorts.
All the footwear are exactly the same, all the dress uniforms are exactly the
same. So what we're really talking about is a question of the tee shirt, the
weight of the sweat pants; I don't know if y'all are arguing over the sweat
shorts or not; the question of the baseball cap, I have a copy of the request
for the baseball cap and I can assure you it's a navy blue baseball cap. The
question of having everything at the third tier, at the third present thing,
every item I had was there and presented on time with the exception of the
eleven and a half ounce sweat pants, which the factory had sent me nine ounce
goods and an eleven and a half sweat shirt. So what we're really talking
about is the only item that was not there was, in fact, one pair of sweat
pants, which was brought in in a most timely fashion before the Public Safety
Committee had a chance to meet. We're talking about $22,179.84 here. On the
items that you're talking about, we were nine dollars low on the sweat pants
and sweat shirts, almost six dollars low on the sweat pants, and five dollars
low on the baseball cap, all goods that we represent, as our reputation has
over the last thirty years, that will be provided and they do meet or exceed
spec.
MS. SAMS: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Gerri Sams and I'm the
Purchasing Director for Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Government. I
have in my hand caps that were spec'd by my department along with the
committee of the Fire Department. These are the hats. This is the spec hat,
and if you look at your specs after Ms. Bonner pass it to you, you will see
that we spec'd a navy blue hat. This is a navy blue hat; this is a blue hat
with red and white. Nowhere in my specifications did I say that this would be
an acceptable hat. And you said that this met spec?
MR. FISHMAN: Yes, ma'am. Your spec asked for a navy blue baseball cap
that's a percentage of wool. Are you telling me that's not a navy blue
baseball cap?
MS. SAMS: Are you telling me that this is not a green bill?
MR. FISHMAN: Did you ask for the underside -- MS. SAMS: I asked
for a navy blue hat.
MR. FISHMAN: Ma'am, underneath your spec hat I believe there is some
white. And I don't think people look at the underside of the hats. They're
both baseball caps, they're both navy blue as per spec.
MS. SAMS: I also take opposition to your making the statement that you
had all of your wares there with the exception of one item.
MR. FISHMAN: That was the sweat pants. We received -- MS. SAMS:
How about your shorts that you went out to pick up at UPS?
MR. FISHMAN: That right there was in time for that particular call, if
I'm correct.
MS. SAMS: That process started at ten o'clock. You had to leave to go
and pick it up, the -- MR. FISHMAN: I left about ten minutes till ten
when the UPS truck came to my store.
MS. SAMS: Okay, I take off item number seven, item number eleven, item
number twelve, and item number twenty. Augusta-Richmond County government has
been confronted over the years with complaints concerning our uniforms. One
of the most difficult areas to address has been the fairness of the process,
and I'm very happy and very pleased today that we have no vendors standing
before you saying that this process was not fair. It was fair. I rejected
bids based on vendors not submitting paperwork in time, I rejected bids based
on vendors not submitting product in time, I rejected bids based on vendors
not following guidelines, as in this case. Mr. Fishman was not in compliance
with what we asked for.
MR. FISHMAN: Ma'am, item twenty is the dress shoes. I provided the
dress shoes that you asked for.
MS. SAMS: I too am very concerned, and I'm very, very, very concerned
about how our budget stands today, and I feel like Mr. Fishman has misled you
about the $22,000 that you would be paying different as far as the supplies
are concerned. If you don't meet specs, how can you cause that outcome? What
is your real bottom line? What is the cost of replacement? What is the
replacement cost? Now, we have a vendor who had all their wares there on time
and met and exceeded specifications. Why should we make an exception in this
case when we had a vendor to share everything with us in a timely manner and
met specs? The $22,000 that Mr. Fishman is talking about does not exist
because out of the items that he has presented to you, several of those did
not meet specifications. And if you'll look at page four, number five, by Mr.
Fishman's admission, he did not -- he failed to have all of his wares present.
If you look at the highlighted areas on this sheet that I passed you, these
are the areas in question. I would like to recommend Command as our lowest --
as our best bid in this case.
MR. FISHMAN: Gentlemen, the fact that a pair of pants -- we had a sample
of the pants in the wrong weight there at that particular meeting. Before the
Public Safety Committee met three or four days later, that second pair of
pants was, in fact, in their hands.
MS. SAMS: But the correction on that, Mr. Fishman, is that your
specification did not ask you to make a presentation to the Finance [sic]
Committee, it asked you to have them present for the Purchasing Department.
There is a difference.
MR. FISHMAN: We gave them to the Purchasing Department, ma'am.
MR. ZETTERBERG: One of the areas that concerned me, Chief, was the fact
that you said the colors didn't match. Is that pertaining to this particular
bid?
MR. FISHMAN: Are we talking about the sweat pants or are we talking
about the uniforms for the general bid? If it's just the sweat pants and
sweat shirts, those are not generally uniforms that you meet the public in.
Those are lounging uniforms.
MS. SAMS: But we still want them to meet specifications, sir.
MR. FISHMAN: But my pants and shirt match, ma'am.
MS. SAMS: Regardless of what the items are, we still want them to meet
specifications.
MR. FISHMAN: But they do. They exceed.
CHIEF FEW: This is what I didn't want to get to this point, but if I
stood you up, you've got three different colors. And she had a cleaner
program. You spoke with me and I told you that. I said her program was much
cleaner looking because all of her colors match.
MR. FISHMAN: You're talking about the sweat shirt and sweat pants?
CHIEF FEW: Yes, we do wear -- we wear sweats at night. We don't put our
shirts with our sweats at night. And then -- MR. FISHMAN: You've got my
sweats. Can you bring them out, sir? I mean, I'm not embarrassed at all
about this. But the eleven ounce goods will match the eleven ounce pants.
CHIEF FEW: Well, I don't have the eleven ounce goods because you sent
them in to Gerri. See, when our committee met that day, we had to make a
recommendation to her at the time.
MR. FISHMAN: Ms. Sams, you withheld my goods from this man?
MS. SAMS: No, I did not withhold your goods. Your goods were not in
compliance, it was not there [inaudible].
MR. FISHMAN: They haven't been returned to me.
MS. SAMS: No, they have not been, and the reason that they haven't been
is because we needed to use them for this purpose.
MR. FISHMAN: Well, will you please show the committee?
MS. SAMS: I'll be more than happy to. And we also have someone else
here to address the committee also.
MR. FISHMAN: Certainly.
MS. PATRICK: My name is Terry Patrick, I represent Command Uniforms.
The only problem I had here is that, again, this was probably one of the
cleanest bids I've ever seen produced by Purchasing. There were stipulations
in the bid and it was that given date that we were supposed to supply our
samples and do it in a professional manner. I don't feel that we can overturn
dates that are printed, that it's fair to the other vendors competing. I
don't want special treatment, I want fairness, that's all I want. And if the
specifications were not met on November the 21st at 10:00 a.m., then I don't
feel like we should be discussing this period. I was the best bid. I did
have all of my items in at that time. I don't feel like that Mr. Fishman
should be allowed to give items after that fact, nor should he be able to say,
well, I can get that item, because it was a written fact that this is what we
had to have. Everyone had ample time to supply them. And I just don't
understand why, if we don't support our Purchasing Department and their
decisions, why we're going through the process every time. I feel like in the
past there have been situations where competitors would come to you guys and
things changed. I just don't feel like it's been a fair bidding process in
the past. I've voiced that to Ms. Sams and she assured me at the beginning of
last year that the bidding process in this town was going to be cleaned up,
that's why she was hired. My main concerns is that we do everything in all
fairness to all competitors. Thank you.
CHIEF FEW: I would like to say that during that bidding process trust
became a problem, and when I sat down with them I told them what the rules
were and we went right over the specifications again. I made them very clear
that day, that you've got to have everything there. They asked me a number of
questions, they even asked me about vendors coming from Atlanta. I told them
if they weren't in the room at the time, that I was cutting them off, that was
it. Ms. Sams agreed and we cut them off. And we did just that, we sent their
bids back. And we had one of the cleanest bids -- and everybody said that,
including Mr. Fishman, that this is the best process that we've ever had,
along with the other vendors, and it's just unfortunate that we got down to
this point where we had to have some differences. And I do business with Mr.
Fishman now. I do more business with him than I do with the Command Uniforms
place. We're doing business with him right now on our badges.
MR. POWELL: Just one thing, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to get it out here
for everybody to air out and find out. You know, we're getting calls from
this person or that person about this system isn't right. I think the Fire
Chief and the Purchasing Director have went overboard to try to make this
system fair, I'll grant you that. But in all fairness to Mr. Fishman, now, it
didn't say the ball hats had to have blue bottoms, so maybe we need to clean
up that portion of it and specify more clearly the next time as far as -- you
know, the ball hat that I saw here was not navy blue, Mr. Fishman. I mean,
one is what I would consider navy blue and one is what I would consider
something between a royal blue and navy blue, and I have to say that in all
fairness. But maybe we can do a little bit better to clean it up and to
clarify if you want blue bottoms or red bottoms or whatever in the future so
that we won't have to be back up here doing this next time on a hundred and
twenty-one item agenda.
MR. FISHMAN: There are over five hundred acceptable shades of navy blue,
unfortunately, in the industry, and the industry laughingly says that. The
goods that I have presented here, the eleven and a half ounce goods, match
each other perfectly. The question is whether the shorts and the sweat pants
and the sweat shirt match completely. I don't believe that you're going to be
wearing the shorts over the sweat pants, you'll either be wearing the sweat
pants or the shorts.
MR. POWELL: Well, I'd certainly hope our firemen aren't out there
meeting the public in sweat pants to start with.
MR. FISHMAN: But what we're really talking about is three items versus
$22,000 worth of savings on a bid, and that's really what we're after. I'm a
taxpayer here in this county. I pay an awful lot of taxes in this county.
It's my tax dollars that y'all are spending. I'm giving you $22,000 literally
right now to go back [inaudible].
MS. PATRICK: Well, I just have one comment on that. I don't know if you
all got tabulations, but Mr. Fishman is charging oversize fees. There is no
oversize fees in my contract. If we could ask Chief Few what the size of the
average man is on the department, that's a savings in itself. The work pant,
I'm sure each individual will be purchasing that versus dress, I was four
dollars lower than him on that situation. And if we tabulated it as what was
going to sell more of, I do believe I'd be lower than him. Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, since I've been down I guess we've argued about the
Fire Department's uniforms. Usually it's been pretty much the same
[inaudible]. I had one gentleman who come to me at an event on a Saturday
night and said, hey look, you guys spec'd us out of the bid process and that's
not fair. And I said, well, it's a competitive bid, you know. And then he
said, well, there's one problem, the product that you want, there's only one
supplier in town and that the low bid had a contract with that supplier before
that supplier went to this name -- before this name brand took over this
supplier or whatever, and I'm sure the man know what I'm talking about here.
And so there is folks that was spec'd out of the process. I wanted to hear
the protest to know what --to hear the other side. Any time there's a protest
filed, I think we should hear the other side. I've talked to everybody
probably that was involved in this process before except Command. I haven't
seen one letter or one phone call or messenger from Command. I guess I'm one
of the ones that pushed the most to get a fair bid process in this community,
and all -- you know, we got disparity study back on the agenda, and all we
want there is fair competition. And so I think in light of fair competition,
whether it's a minority by gender or race or a majority community person that
wins the bid, if it's fair I'm going to support it. And those are my
comments.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is there a motion on the floor?
CLERK: We've got a motion, not a second.
MR. MAYS: I'll second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Under the Public Services portion of the agenda, we'd like to ask
for consent on 82 through 103, with 86 being disapproved. And we're asking
that Items 104, 105, and 106 be postponed until December 30th.
[Item 82: Motion to approve best proposal for procurement of
electrical and lighting improvements in the amount of $51,851.00 to Georgia
Power. Item 83: Motion to approve new ownership request by James S.
Richardson for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to
be used in connection with Augusta Live located at 1102-B Broad Street.
Item 84: Motion to approve new ownership request by Youngim Shim for a
retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Yeong
Grocery located at 1478 Wrightsboro Road. Item 85: Motion to approve
new ownership request by Sun H. Knight for a retail package beer and wine
license to be used in connection with Sun's Stop-N-Shop located at 1902
Windsor Spring Road. Item 86: Pulled from consent agenda. Item
87: Motion to approve new ownership request by Ivey Thomas for a retail
package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Eagle Majic
Market located at 2301 Lumpkin Road. Item 89: Motion to approve new
ownership request by Grover Lloyd, Jr. for a retail package beer and wine
license to be used in connection with Winn-Dixie #1020 located at 207
Robert C. Daniel, Jr. Parkway. Item 90: Motion to approve new
ownership request by Laurence G. Landis, Jr. for a consumption on premises
liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Hometown
Lounge located at 2923 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall.
Item 91: Motion to approve new ownership request by Mark A. Graff for a
consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in
connection with Surrey Tavern located at 471 Highland Avenue. There will
be a dance hall. Item 92: Motion to approve new ownership request by
Deborah J. Harpe for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine
license to be used in connection with Gary's Place at Walton Station
located at 3626 Walton Way. There will be a dance hall. Item 93:
Motion to approve new ownership request by Charles Cooper for a retail
package beer license to be used in connection with Neighborhood Food Store
located at 1738 Old Savannah Road. Item 94: Motion to approve new
ownership request by Chi Yon Jones for a consumption on premises liquor and
beer license to be used in connection with Speed Karaoke Restaurant located
at 1855 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. Item 95: Motion
to approve a request by Eddie Evans for a retail liquor, beer and wine
license to be used in connection with Kim's Package Shop located at 2228
Rosier Road. Item 96: Motion to approve a request by Barry R.
Blackston to add Sunday sales to the existing consumption on premises
liquor, beer and wine license used in connection with Nacho Mama's
Restaurant located at 1002 Broad Street. Item 97: Motion to approve
Bush Field's five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as requested by
Georgia DOT. Item 98: Motion to approve $66,000 budget and computer
system network for Bush Field as recommended by Information Technologies.
Item 99: Motion to approve and award professional services for
architecture and engineering to Nicholas Dickinson and Associates for
$22,275.00 for the construction of Blythe Community Center. Item 100:
Motion to approve and award professional services for architecture and
engineering to Roger Davis and Associates for $19,800.00 for Savannah Place
Park Improvements. Item 101: Motion to approve a change in the
professional services contract awarded to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst,
P.C. in the amount of $7,000.00 for wetlands delineation and mapping of the
South Augusta Regional Park. Item 102: Motion to approve and award
professional services for architecture and engineering to Johnson,
Laschober & Associates for $35,000.00 for improvements and renovations to
May Park and Fleming Tennis Center. Item 103: Motion to approve
reprogramming SPLOST Phase III funds for Hephzibah/Carroll Community Center
from 1999 - 1997 $60,000 and to reprogram Heath Street Park from 1997 -1999
$60,000. Item 104: Postponed to 12/30/97. Item 105: Postponed
to 12/30/97. Item 106: Postponed to 12/30/97.]
MR. MAYS: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO ON ITEMS 94 & 96; MR. POWELL ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1, ITEMS 94 & 96.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0, ITEMS 82-93, 95, 97-103.
CLERK: Item 86: Motion to approve new ownership request by Mun Cha
Frazier for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection
with Sue's Grille located at 3061 Deans Bridge Road. Disapproved by the
Public Services Committee on December the 8th.
MS. FRAZIER: My name is Mun Cha Frazier, I live Augusta, Georgia. I own
restaurant, I need the beer license.
SPEAKER: She has a little bit of a hard time getting her English across
for what she's trying to say, that's why I'm here. I'm [inaudible], I'm a
friend of hers. I live in Augusta as well. She opened Sue's Grille over
there on Deans Bridge Road and I'm not going to tell you the exact address
because I don't know it, I just know the location. Okay, 3061 Deans Bridge
Road. It's right there by the Gateway Motel. She was here on December the 8th
and the license was denied, and she doesn't understand why. And she's
requesting that you go ahead and please approve for her to have a beer
license, on-premises consumption only, and there's no Sunday sales included in
that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I was at the committee meeting and probably made
the motion to disapprove and certainly supported it. And I guess we can hear
from the Sheriff's Department, but I'm ready to make the same motion. And I'm
glad that she has an interpreter today with her.
DEPUTY BERRY: Good evening, Commissioners and Madame. I conducted my
investigation at 3061 Deans Bridge Road, the location applying for an alcohol
license. There's also another business at that location, which is the Gateway
Inn Motel. Within the past ten months [inaudible] the Sheriff's Department
answered over a hundred and thirty calls to this location. The calls range
from suspicious person to shots being fired to individuals getting shot to
people getting robbed. Our narcotics squad also made nine felony drug arrests
at this drug location. It was our opinion that if you grant this applicant an
alcohol license at this location, crime will only increase, not decrease.
We're already having trouble in this area.
SPEAKER: Can I ask one question, please? The report you have is to the
Gateway Inn and not to Sue's Grille; is that correct?
DEPUTY BERRY: Most of the incidents happened in the parking lot which
is used by both businesses.
SPEAKER: Right, there's only a minor curb area that's dividing the two.
It's mostly open, but there is a small curb like thing that divides the
parking lots. There's not like any walls or anything like that. But this is
affiliated with the Gateway Inn and not with her.
DEPUTY BERRY: Not her as an individual. The two businesses, there's a
big parking lot in between the two businesses. All the calls was either
[inaudible], most of them was in the parking lot, so I don't know if it come
out of her place or what, you know.
SPEAKER: Because of the report that you have there in your investigation
you feel like, the crime rate, it's better for her not to have an alcohol
license at her restaurant; is that correct?
DEPUTY BERRY: That's correct.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question to Officer Berry, is the
property owned by the same individuals?
DEPUTY BERRY: I'm not sure, but their using the same address. I would
think it was, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.
SPEAKER: She leases -- MR. TODD: From the Gateway property owners?
SPEAKER: Yes, she does.
MR. TODD: Yes. We have done locations before where it would have a
negative impact on the area, and so certainly I'm -- Mr. Mayor, I'm going
to make a motion that we comply with the committee and deny the license
based on the fact that the crime count in that area [inaudible]. And if
the owners of the property clean up their situation, then maybe we'll
consider it at a later date.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Officer Berry, would it be your recommenda-tion that we
don't give any beer license to anyone up in that area?
DEPUTY BERRY: Yes, sir, that would be my recommendation.
MR. BRIDGES: As I understand it, the motion is in keeping with what came
out of the committee?
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 107: Motion to approve new application request by Dana
Michelle Harris for a retail package and consumption on premises liquor,
beer and wine license to be used in connection with Gepfert's Package Shop
& Lounge located at 120 Sand Bar Ferry Road. There will be a dance hall.
MR. SHERMAN: This application has been denied. The package shop is less
than a mile from another package shop, which under the ordinance it cannot be.
And the lounge is being denied by the Sheriff's Department.
MR. BOONE: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Jack Boone, I'm an
attorney for Ms. Harris. We understand the problem with the package shop.
We'd like to know what reason is being offered to deny her a license for a
lounge. Obviously alcohol sales is not a problem because she's too close to a
package shop to sell alcohol, so there must not be a problem, and we'd like --
it was my understanding it was coming over by no recommendation from the
Public Safety Committee and we've heard no reasons why her license is being
denied.
MR. MAYS: One correction we might want to make, Mr. Mayor. Jack, on the
last committee meeting we sent it on over as opposed to denying it, because it
was the last -- well, near the last committee meeting of the year. And there
was nobody present, so rather than taking a total denial because of the
absence, we sent it on over here where it could at least be voted up or down
before the year-end meeting.
MR. BOONE: I understand that, but I want the record to reflect that I
had called and informed people that Judge Fleming had me captured in Columbia
County and I couldn't get away.
MR. WALL: Let me apologize to Mr. Boone. He had called my office and
left word on the voice mail. I did not get that message until after the
committee meeting when I returned to the office and heard that message. And
so when you were not present at the committee meeting, nobody was aware of the
fact, nor was I aware of it. I got the message on voice mail when I got back
to the office.
DEPUTY BERRY: Our reason being for our recommendation at this location
was based on past history at this location when it had an alcohol license.
They had a lot of problems. I was working for the city at the time, but I am
familiar with some of the problems. There was a lot of problems with
individuals loitering on the outside of the business, across the street from
the business, shots being fired, drugs being sold, individuals getting killed.
Since this location haven't had an alcohol license there have been no crimes
in this area, none whatsoever. We feel that if you grant an alcohol license
you're going to invite the same activity over again and again, people getting
injured, shot, whatever. Also, maybe I need to bring up this. This hadn't
happened prior to my writing this letter, but there's also been some activity
at the residence of 1627 Newberry Street. Narcotics executed a drug search
warrant at this residence on November 1st, I believe, and drugs was seized on
the residence. I believe that's the address Ms. Harris has given as her
address. So based on this and the past history we are asking that this
license be denied and no other license there in the future.
MR. BOONE: If I may, I believe the incidents he's talking about, that
was another ownership over ten years ago. You can't continually punish a
neighborhood over something that happened over ten years ago. Ms. Harris is
here, she can let the Council know that she will have a policeman both inside
and outside. She plans to be open Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, and
would not open without having a policeman there for her own protection. All
this happened over ten years ago. It's commercial, there's liquor right down
the street -- as a matter of fact, close enough that you can't get a package
store license. We think that this is being quite capricious and arbitrary in
applying these standards to her.
MS. HARRIS: If I might add for the record also, I am divorced and I'm
living with a young lady, so the incident of drugs being seized in the
property, I do not know that. That could be affiliated with my name, but --
however, I do reside at the residence. My parents live at the lake, so I'm
back and forth throughout the week up there. But the incidences that he spoke
of, the gunshots and things of that nature, those occurred over ten years ago,
the last time that the business had a liquor license. So I shouldn't be
judged on what has happened at the business in the past, ten years ago, and I
wish that you would see my point. And I am willing to employ two deputies to
work with me, which Mr. Berry and other officers told me I couldn't pay them
enough to work there, but I have spoken with three deputies who agreed to work
with me but don't want me to mention their names for fear of their jobs.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to, I guess, not get involved in the
discussions or the vote on this issue. I'm going to abstain because I had
someone to approach me, to be quite frank with you, about obtaining a license
in this general location and that's the reason. And basically my comments
were, one, it would be not proper or probably legal for me to do it, being a
Commissioner, and, two, that even if I wasn't a Commissioner it would be
possibly selfish. So I'm going to abstain from debate or vote on this issue.
MR. BRIDGES: I make a motion the application be denied.
MR. KUHLKE: Second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
CLERK: Item 108: Motion to approve new ownership request by Kyong
Sun Pak for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection
with the K-Store located at 3221 Wrightsboro Road.
MR. SHERMAN: This application meets all the requirements of the alcohol
license ordinance and the Sheriff's Department as to the approval. There was
no recommendation because she was not present.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 110, Number 2: Mr. Mays would like to offer the name of
Mr. Charlie McCann in nomination for appointment to the Richmond County
Personnel Board.
MR. MAYS: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move that nominations be closed.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion that nominations be
closed, raise your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to nominate Mr. McCann,
let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 111: Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of
the Commission November 18, 1997.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: The Mayor would like to ask that the following items be
postponed until our December 30th meeting: Items 112, 113, 115, 116, 120,
and 121, and the legal meeting.
MR. TODD: So move.
SPEAKER: Excuse me, may I say something? On Item 113, in order to get
the Weed and Seed Grant we have to have the application in to them by December
the 30th. This is just the recognition application [inaudible].
MR. KUHLKE: I move for approval.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve Item 113,
let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 117: Motion to approve Amendment of the City Council of
Augusta 1949 General Retirement Fund so as to provide payments of $2,000.00
per year to certain participants.
MR. WALL: Let me explain this ordinance, because some of you may have
gotten some calls and there has been some concern on the part of some of the
retirees. When this came up the last time and you approved the $2,000, we
talked about except for the window employees, which was primarily at that time
dealing with those that received the enhanced early retire-ment. I had been
led to believe and was under the impression at the time that there were no
other individuals that had retired after the increase in the 1949 pension plan
had gone into effect raising it to 2.15 percent. That information was in
error. There are about -- I've heard the number 12, I've heard the number 14,
and I'm not sure what the exact number is of employees from the City of
Augusta that retired subsequent to January 1, 1995, when the pension payment
benefit was increased up to the enhanced early retirement. There has been
concern about the fact that those individuals do not receive or will not
receive the additional $2,000, and I drafted the ordinance with the fact in
mind, in my opinion, they should not get the additional $2,000 benefit.
People who retired prior to January 1, 1995, receive 2 percent per year up to
60 percent, or 1.75 percent per year without any maximum amount. Under the new
formula that went into effect January 1, 1995, they receive 2.15 percent for
the first 30 years, and after that they receive 1.5 percent for 30 years.
Let me give you two different scenarios. I've been told that those 12 to
14 individuals typically had around 25 years of service. Under the pre-
January 1, 1995 formula, an employee that was making $30,000 at that time
would have received a $15,000 benefit; in 1996 he would have gotten roughly a
3 percent increase; 1997 I've not been able to determine, but assuming that
there was another cost of living increase of roughly 3 percent, today he would
be receiving $16,222. If you add the $2,000, obviously that's $18,222. Under
the formula that went into effect January 1, 1995, if a current working
employee were to retire today he's going to get $16,125. So by adding the
$2,000 to that employee that retired subsequent to January 1, 1995, he would
be getting $2,000 more than someone who is currently working for the city that
were to retire under that plan. I've got other scenar-ios of a 20-year
employee, I mean, you work out the same thing. So I think -- it was my opinion
and I talked with Mr. Oliver in drafting this, that there should not be the
$2,000 additional benefit for those that had the benefit of the 2.15 percent
that was the increase that went into effect January 1, 1995. Now, the
argument on the other side is that some of these employees, because of the
downsizing of the city, basically chose retirement in order to facilitate the
downsizing and to assist and help out some of their co-workers. I mean, if
within a department someone had to go, someone who had 20, 25, 30 years opted
to take the retirement so that someone who was younger and needed to work
could maintain that job. I do think there is a problem, however, from a
fairness standpoint in giving the $2,000 benefit to someone who has gotten an
increase when a current employee did not get it. But that is the reason that
the ordinance is drafted the way it is, and I recommend it be approved the way
it is.
MR. OLIVER: And I agree with Mr. Wall because, as he mentioned, we would
be giving a high level of benefit to a certain class of people if we change
that than we would to a person if they retired today.
LIEUTENANT POWELL: Let me add a little word to this. It was generally
understood from all involved in this during the discussions along the way that
these people that had got an enhanced retirement would not be entitled to this
$2,000. It was to be dealt with people who retired between 1987 and back.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Can you give us your full name for the record, please?
LIEUTENANT POWELL: I'm Lieutenant James Powell, from the Police
Department. And we've had people call us: Hey look, we're going to get the
$2,000. No, you're not entitled to it; you've got yours; all we want to do is
get a proportionate share of what you've already got. And it was well made
known to these people, and why they come up and call you telling you that they
want a certain amount of money for them, too, they don't deserve it. They
didn't work for it. We were pitted one against another [inaudible], and this
is why it resulted in this kind of confrontation on these people. But it was
well known all along that these people would not be entitled to it.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, my understanding is that the ones that got the
enhanced early retirement weren't entitled anyway. The question is here
before that. And the problem I have, at some point during this discussion we
set a date deadline that before that didn't get it and after that they would.
And I've been told you can't find it in the minutes, but -- I mean, I haven't
asked Lena to look it up yet, but my understanding was that we told these
people that before 1/1/96 they would get it and after that they would not. Is
my recollection faulty or?
MR. WALL: Mr. Bridges, the only discussion I ever heard was other than
the window employees. I had a discussion --because I was concerned about
those employees from January 1, 1995. Maybe I should have spoken up at that
time. But I was told that there were no employees that retired after January
1, 1995, under this plan other than the enhanced early retire-ment. Well, it
turns out that was wrong information. So when I learned that information and
realized that we needed a cutoff date -- and I don't think that there was ever
a date, it was always other than the, quote, window employees. Then, in my
opinion, the proper date is to exclude those that got the benefit of the
increase that occurred effective January 1, 1995. My perception was that the
presentation and the vote of this Commission was to benefit those who had not
received the benefit of any recent increase in the pension benefit, the people
who had been retired for a number of years that retired under a lower salary
and a lesser percentage and to boost them up basically to a current employee,
not to benefit a group that has received all of the increases.
MR. BRIDGES: And I think you're right, we did discuss the 2.15 or
whatever. But I was thinking that we discussed a date, too, but I'm told
that's not in the minutes anywhere.
MR. TODD: The one thing that I don't want to be here is an indian giver,
and I think that we want to do what we said we would do. And as I recollect,
Chief Maddox was here and he stood up basically and acknowledged that the
folks that retired with the enhanced retirement would not be included, and he
was speaking for the group that retired before him [inaudible] Mr. Baker and
others that sat out there, and we agreed to give them the $2,000. I've been
nervous about this situation because of the stock market, but Mr. Baker, you
know, pretty much assured us that we wouldn't have a 15 point loss on average,
I think -- or he might not have assured us, but anything could happen based on
historical data. And I don't think that's happened at this point, so I don't
see any reason renege and not do what we promised that we would do originally,
and I'm going to vote for and support what we promised. I'm not going to be
an indian giver here, I don't see any reason to be. I think, you know, if
there was a reason to be, that fair-minded folks like Mr. Baker would stand up
and say, hey look, you know, maybe you guys need to slow this thing down. I
see him standing up, but I don't think he said that [inaudible].
MR. BAKER: I would appreciate if you would consider giving all the
retirees under the '49 pension act the $2,000. That's what we have asked for
from the very beginning, I believe that's what was voted on, and I'll leave it
at that. And especially those people that retired during '95, during the city
downsizing. A lot of those people went ahead and retired so some younger
people could still have their jobs. And they only got a cent and a half if
they had -- I mean .15 if they had 25 years of service, and that would amount
to --if they had 25 years, to my calculations, would be 3.75, just not quite 4
percent increase. Thank you.
MR. WALL: Let me address that. Mr. Baker, if they had 25 years of
service -- and he's right, that under the pre-1995 plan they would get 50
percent is what the calculation would work out to be. After January 1, 1995,
that same employee would get 53.75 percent. So an employee that was making
$30,000 in 1995 would have gotten $15,000. I used 3 percent because that's
what I assumed. It's actually 2.8 percent. But roughly $15,450. And then in
1997, with a 3.3 percent increase it's going to be in excess of $16,222. Now
you're talking about adding another $2,000 on top of that, so it'd be $18,000.
Assuming that I were a city employee and I retired today, I would get
$16,125. So those 12 or 14 employees that retired during that period from
January 1, 1995, up to the enhanced early retirement in today's dollar is
going to get $2,000 more than the current workers and I don't think that's
fair.
MR. KUHLKE: I move approval of the amendment as worded.
MR. TODD: I'm going to second it to get it on the floor, I guess. I'm
reluctant to do that because my colleague was kind of reluctant to let me
withdraw a motion, so I'll second it to get it on the floor. Now, it's my
understanding that we're giving the individuals that retired before 1995 in
the enhanced retirement $2,000 out of the plan?
MR. WALL: No. You're giving the people that retired prior to January 1,
1995, $2,000 in addition to their benefit. Enhanced early retirement, these 12
or 14, would not get the $2,000.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. MAYS VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 118: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta-
Richmond County Code to provide for a 1-cent increase in the Hotel/Motel
Tax and to amend the contract with the CVB to provide for distribution of
the increase.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I made the motion at our previous meeting that we
approve this, and I think that there was a discussion at that meeting and
there was some confusion among the presentation made by Mr. Simon and the CVB
board. It's my understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong, that
they had gotten together and all of the organizations concur with the proposal
sent to us. Now, I will say this: what's in our agenda book is different
than what has been sent to me, and it was in everybody's box, from Mr. Simon.
What's in my box from Mr. Simon is signed by the chairman of the CVB board,
Mr. Timmerman. So I would like to move approval, but I'm not -- and I would
like to move approval on the proposal that I have from Mr. Simon which
outlines the makeup of the subcommittee of the CVB board.
CLERK: What's the date on that, Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: The date is December the 15th, 1997.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't have a second to
Mr. Kuhlke's motion yet, Mr. Todd. I need a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion.
MR. TODD: Not hardly, until I get a copy of the -- CLERK: It's in
your mailbox, sir.
MR. OLIVER: It came in late yesterday afternoon.
MR. TODD: Well, you know, I don't know whether most folks know this or
not, but I'm not down here eight hours a day, five/ six days a week, and I
can't respond to things normally that's in the mailbox that short notice. And
when something change from the agenda item, certainly it change my readiness
to move on it and vote on it. So -- MR. KUHLKE: If I may, Mr. Todd, the
only difference in what's in your agenda book is under the area of agent, and
the revised agent proposal is that the committee would be made up of the Mayor
Pro Tem of the City of Augusta.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, point of information, if I could get a copy of the
-- MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, why don't we just take this up on the 30th? I
don't think we have the time to debate this today, and maybe it would be
better just to -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got all these people
standing here. They've been here a long time, so if we could go ahead and
resolve this -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we go
on and approve the hotel/motel tax and come back on the 30th and figure out
how we're going to distribute it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I give up my leverage on distributing it. And
certainly I want to be fair to everybody that's involved -- MAYOR
SCONYERS: Wait a minute, Mr. Todd. I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, do I hear
a second to Mr. Brigham's motion?
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I try to be fair to everybody involved, and I told
them the last time that last-minute changes and things changing within a
twenty-four hour period, that I would not tolerate it, and I'm not going to
tolerate it. And I have a meeting in Aiken, South Carolina, and I'm going to,
I guess, get up and go to that meeting. I probably need a little more drive
time than everybody else since I'm driving a old Ranger pickup truck.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that if we're going to vote on the
distribution or decide on that on the 30th, in all fairness, that maybe we
move whatever we've got on the agenda that day and we move it to the top.
Because this has been a long day, but this is an important item, and we've got
-- now we're trying to capsule it and to go. And I made a serious strong
commitment -- and I know that this is a painless tax. I think it can be
worthwhile if used properly. But there are some decisions regarding that
budget that as a representative for four districts, when I'm asked to look at
some people things particularly -- and I brought up the question about
Transit, how we're going to be able to incorporate some things in there. And
we're talking about some of these agencies, and which all of them are good,
and probably if I get to picking may get personal. I think we got some things
there that particularly the Sports Council can do as it relates to a lot of
areas. But I don't see where we worked that out. I am a stickler, I get
accused of wanting things in writing, but I've been here long enough to know
two weeks can cause a hell of a lot of amnesia. And I'm going to stay
with what I said, that if it's not spelled out on what we were going to do,
I'm not going to vote for increasing a tax on one day and deciding how we're
going to distribute it on another day. Either let's stay and miss Aiken and
decide it or let's put the whole thing on that day. But I won't vote to kill
it, I'll vote present today, and I'll be with you in terms of that debate or
discussion on how we do the distribution of it. But that's what I said on
that day when we did it and I'm not going to back out on that.
MR. TIMMERMAN: I was at a conference today, not to belabor the point,
and one of the topics that came up was communicating with governmental
officials. And I think we've tried our darnedest to get you the information
in a form that is under-standable. If we have not done that, I apologize to
you. What you're seeing in this packet is no different from what you saw
before with the exception of the members of the committee. The criteria are
the same, only the committee members changed. And in that only, I think, one
changed and that was the Mayor Pro Tem in place of the Mayor. And we did put
some people on the CVB. There are some names that can be put in the group if
we have to put them in there. So I'm a little surprised that nobody
understands, but if they don't it's our fault, and we'll be able to help you.
MR. KUHLKE: Let me tell you the problem, Pat. And I think this was
communicated and I knew what was going to happen. The package that was in our
book came from the CVB board. The compromise that was worked out between the
CVB board and the other organizations was put loosely in everybody's box. So
that's the problem. We are very basic people up here, very common people,
very dumb people in some instances, so if you don't put it in front of us in
the right format you're going to get exactly what you got right now.
MR. SIMON: Well, Mr. Kuhlke, how do we do that? We've tried
unsuccessfully -- MR. OLIVER: To be fair, the book was printed last week
because that's the deadline for the agenda. And the amended criteria from Mr.
Simon came in yesterday, and upon receipt it was distributed. So it's really
a question of the timing difference, I believe.
MR. BEARD: I think that we could get this all maybe straightened out. I
think nobody, Mr. Timmerman, is really opposed to this, but it's the matter of
distribution that has been the center of this thing. And I disagree with you
a little bit on the number of proposals that have been forwarded through the
last three or four days. I think if we sit down and work this thing out,
maybe something can happen on the 30th, but I don't think most of the people
up here on this rostrum will go along with what has been presented today.
MR. SIMON: Well, can you give us someone to sit down with and let's
discuss this?
MR. KUHLKE: You need one thing in the book and nothing floating loose.
I mean, that's it.
MR. WALL: I got the letter from Mr. Simon from last week that outlined
the makeup. I spoke with Mr. Sheppard as the attorney for the CVB, furnished
him with a copy of it. I was in Atlanta last Thursday when you all had your
meeting, disapproved that. The agenda books were being put together on that
Thursday and that draft of the contract was there. I did not get a copy of
this letter until this morning. Now, it may have been distributed to the
other people yesterday, but I didn't know about it until this morning, and I
did not revise the contract to bring over here because -- MR. SIMON: May
I address this to Mr. Oliver? How do we get in the book, Mr. Oliver, so that
we're all singing off the same sheet of music?
MR. OLIVER: The cutoff for the book is the Wednesday before. It's 12:00
noon the Wednesday before, so consequently, if you have an evolving issue, the
key is to have resolution before that. The information was provided that was
in the proper form that Thursday morning, and it was the best information
everybody knew based upon what was going on. At that point no action had been
taken. The information was subsequently changed. Upon finding out that the
information was changed, it was forwarded loosely because the cutoff for the
agenda had already passed.
MR. SIMON: I understand that. But going forward, when is the next
meeting?
MR. WALL: Well, the next meeting is on the 30th. I will incorporate the
changes that are included in the letter. I don't know whether all the
Commissioners are in agreement with that. The fact that y'all may be in
agreement, the Commissioners may be -- I don't know whether that is a concern.
And I will discuss that with them. And they will have a revised contract
that Mr. Sheppard as your attorney has presented to y'all and you have
approved, and then it will be presented to them, I assume, on the 30th.
MR. SIMON: Randy, we don't need to do anything else then; is that right?
I mean, you've got everything that you need from everybody?
MR. OLIVER: Assuming that there are no subsequent changes, that is
correct.
MR. SIMON: Well, everybody is in agreement on this with the CVB board
and the group that we all represent with the hotel/ motel industry. Everybody
is recommending that we pass the tax. And, of course, we feel that this is a
source of funds that we're missing out on. And when the county has need for
funds, I think this is an opportunity to raise money that can be used to
replace some of the cuts that you had to make, and I think this should be
administered through the organizations that we have recommended. So we'll
appreciate your support on the 30th. And I don't know of anything else that
we'll submit if you don't think we need to submit anything else, and we look
forward to hopefully a support of the vote on the 30th. Thank you.
MR. MAYS: Well, I think you got nine votes now in order to do that, but
I'm going to tell you what the temperament is, because if I don't see any
changes in it I know what the vote is going to be. I don't have a problem
about whether something is put in my book or in the box. I'm going to say one
thing real gentlemanly: I don't care where it's put, it's what is put down
there. And when you talk about replacing some of the cuts we've got, in that
painless tax I want to see some relief that goes to some other places, too.
And I mentioned that because I thought it was a viable item. Some people may
say that's one of my pets of doing that, but I brought it up and nothing else
in any document that I've seen since that day has said one thing about doing
it. Now, I have enough argument arguing with my colleagues about how we do
some of the things with a public transit system. Now, y'all can build
anything you want to down on the river and promote it, but if you don't have
no damn way of getting somebody down there and being able to have an efficient
system in a city this size and find a way to help us with that, then y'all go
ahead on and pass it. I can vote today, but if there's no changes I'll tell
you what my vote is going to be, it's going to be exactly what it was then.
MR. SIMON: Mr. Mays, I don't think, though, that this money can be used
for transportation, as I understand it. There's a representative here from the
Georgia Hospitality Travel Association and he might be able to respond to
that, but I don't think the funds can be used in that way.
MR. MAYS: Augusta has been the most creative city, Mr. Simon, about
spreading public money around that I've seen, and I think -- it doesn't
necessarily have to go into our direct budget, but I think there are ways that
it can be incorporated so that it can work in order to enhance that transit
system, and that's the only thing I'm saying. If you think I said it just to
hear myself talking, then I'll just say go ahead on and bring it like it is
and it'll pass nine to one.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, do you want to withdraw your motion
[inaudible].
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll withdraw my motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. We'll carry 118 over to the 30th. Now, how
about Number 2 on the addendum agenda.
CLERK: Acceptance of aviation fuel supply proposal from Texaco
Refining and Marketing, Inc. (Bid Item #98-002) as recommended by the
Purchasing Director, the Airport Director, and a subcommittee of the
Augusta Aviation Commission. MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this appears to be a best bid. Do we have a
low bid?
MR. OLIVER: When you do all of the numbers, there's one that, if you
interpret it one way, is about $5,000 cheaper on a two million dollar bid.
But when you count all of the options, this is also the cheapest bid because
there are a couple of things they're doing. I would note this is an eight and
a half percent savings over what we're currently paying.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You're saying this is the low bid, not only the best
bid?
MR. OLIVER: Depends how you count. If you count one way, it's -- this
is the best bid, not the low bid, and there's 5,100 and some dollars on about
a two million dollar bid. There's some intangibles in there that make this a
better bid.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. MAYS ABSENT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Move for adjournment so we can go to Aiken.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M.]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a
true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta-
Richmond County Commission held on December 16, 1997.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission